Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side. But really? A lone AT unit with some AT guns and 400 men could hold out against the LAH div?

I've been reading in forums that this same messed up logic is going on. Why are lone AT or Arty units supermen? Nothing in history during WW2 would suggest this type of battle result.

Can we get the looked at and fixed? Or some decent explanation as to wtf is going on here. More upsetting because that stupid lone Soviet AT unit ruined some of my plans.




NOTE: the 2/3 units of LAH I used with the Mot Inf Reg.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer

LAH against AT - that's not that simple!

I was not there.

How was the weather? How was the terrain? As the troops were well supplied?
How were the values ​​for readiness, unit integrity, morale, entrenchment, and experience?
Many important questions.

LAH against AT - that's just not that simple!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side. But really? A lone AT unit with some AT guns and 400 men could hold out against the LAH div?

I've been reading in forums that this same messed up logic is going on. Why are lone AT or Arty units supermen? Nothing in history during WW2 would suggest this type of battle result.

Can we get the looked at and fixed? Or some decent explanation as to wtf is going on here. More upsetting because that stupid lone Soviet AT unit ruined some of my plans.




NOTE: the 2/3 units of LAH I used with the Mot Inf Reg.

LAH against AT - that's not that simple!

I was not there.

How was the weather? How was the terrain? As the troops were well supplied?
How were the values ​​for readiness, unit integrity, morale, entrenchment, and experience?
Many important questions.

LAH against AT - that's just not that simple!

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side....

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side....

No casualties to either side? Sounds like LAH decided not to press the attack at all. Maybe they took a wrong turn and couldn't find the enemy? Very inconsiderate of the enemy to ruin your plans like that.

But seriously, one failed attack hardly invalidates the whole combat system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The problem is probably that AT and artillery units have what comes down to a fairly substantial amount of infantry, which benefit greatly from the game's entrenchment system.

The current entrenchment system is somewhat odd, as even the auto entrenchment value can seriously reduce casualties or stop an attack.

I more or less stopped attacking most kinds of "weaker" Soviet units in my 1st Panzer Army game because they would often cause disproportionate losses whilst taking fairly few due to their auto-entrenchment after moving somewhere.

I've attacked artillery groups or AT units with an entire Panzer division or Wiking from multiple sides and they didn't retreat. And whereas the Soviet infantry units tend to panic with heavy losses on the follow-up attack (when they have no entrenchment), I had to attack an artillery group 3 times with an entire Panzer division during the same turn before it was destroyed.

Of course, the AI gets bonuses, but that bonuses is only documented as being 20% in combat and it isn't clear if it also applies on the defense.

The link between entrenchment and casualties could possibly use some improvement, as currently the casualties for non-entrenched units are (very) high whilst the casualties for entrenched units are usually (quite) low.

Start a 2nd battle of Kharkov game as the Axis, for example, and you'll see that even though the Soviets suffer fairly heavy losses when attacking dug in regiments, but that the follow-up attack often nearly wipes out the remaining infantry in your regiment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

AT is Artillery in reality.

As I noted elsewhere, I'd guess the problem is that Artillery unit personnel are modded as Infantry in the individual unit TO&Es.

Either there should be a separate troop type, much less well armed (which would, mainly, represent less well trained ... as you couldn't have them *actually* less well trained as, I would guess, that would affect the effectiveness of the artillery in the unit) ... much less well armed or the crew strength should be somehow subsumed in the number of tubes, and each tube loss would mean a loss of those men ... which, I suspect, may be difficult to mod.

But you are 99.99% right ... unsupported Artillery units attacked by *anyone* would be walkover in almost all cases.

Phil

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The problem is probably that AT and artillery units have what comes down to a fairly substantial amount of infantry, which benefit greatly from the game's entrenchment system.

The current entrenchment system is somewhat odd, as even the auto entrenchment value can seriously reduce casualties or stop an attack.

I more or less stopped attacking most kinds of "weaker" Soviet units in my 1st Panzer Army game because they would often cause disproportionate losses whilst taking fairly few due to their auto-entrenchment after moving somewhere.

I've attacked artillery groups or AT units with an entire Panzer division or Wiking from multiple sides and they didn't retreat. And whereas the Soviet infantry units tend to panic with heavy losses on the follow-up attack (when they have no entrenchment), I had to attack an artillery group 3 times with an entire Panzer division during the same turn before it was destroyed.

Of course, the AI gets bonuses, but that bonuses is only documented as being 20% in combat and it isn't clear if it also applies on the defense.

The link between entrenchment and casualties could possibly use some improvement, as currently the casualties for non-entrenched units are (very) high whilst the casualties for entrenched units are usually (quite) low.

Start a 2nd battle of Kharkov game as the Axis, for example, and you'll see that even though the Soviets suffer fairly heavy losses when attacking dug in regiments, but that the follow-up attack often nearly wipes out the remaining infantry in your regiment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

...But no casualties is a little maddening. Used to drive me nuts in wite you'd attack with something and the attacker wouldn't lose a single troop. But again i can't see the attack details to see if everything was just misses or how many rounds the attack lasted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex0809

I think it's reasonable that a very-well entrenched unit can hold off enemies of even 5 times its size or so, no question - it happened in reality, stories of horrendous casualties of Soviets when they charged defensive positions FRONTALLY are famous..
but I think that attacking an entrenched unit from even just two sides should VASTLY decrease the entrenchment bonus of the defenders. Right now, I think the concentric bonus is too low.

(I'm not talking about AT guns here, I don't have much military knowledge, so I just assumed that these 1000 infantry men in an artillery regiment represent 1000 regular soldiers that are meant to protect the guns, not the gun crews itself)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

So, I have created a new SFT type called 2nd Rate Infantry with lower stats and a different image. I then changed the TOE for the Artillery unit shown to use this type of infantry and also edited the pre-defined units as well.

Someone needs to take this further as it's not a big issue IMHO, and it looks like you might need to mod each relevant on-map unit, but Vic might be able to explain a quicker method.

Takes about 20 minutes to create the new unit type, but several hours if you have to click through every Arty, AT and HQ unit on the map. (There must be a quick way to do that - I just haven't looked for it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It is indeed possible that a small unit could cause significant losses to a larger unit and take few of its own, and I don't have a problem with the casualties per se. I do have mixed feelings about the entrenchment system, as well as the fact that the primary means to reduce entrenchment (artillery and air power) are uneffective currently after 1 turn. Aside from the penalties to artillery, I also don't know why my air group readiness keeps dropping even with no losses. 1 sortie (or a couple of sorties after eachother) every 2 days probably shouldn't cause any significant drops in readiness.