Attacking at minimize losses?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Attacking at minimize losses?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Attacking at minimize losses?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Attacking at minimize losses? - 7/28/2013 12:38:13 AM

PRUSSIAN TOM

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline

Other than not running the risk of burning through a lot of combat rounds (and keeping the bloodshed to a minimum), what is the advantage of attacking with units set on minimize losses?

This is an Eastern Front scenario (Kharkov '43). I think Bob Cross recommends that the Germans do just that on their first turn with his 41-45 scenario.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer

, but with a new (to me) scenario I usually first let the AI play itself, to get a feel for the flow of the scenario (e.g. I cheat).

(Since it's not PBEM, there is no one to complain).

Post #: 1

RE: Attacking at minimize losses? - 7/28/2013 1:24:00 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PRUSSIAN TOM

Other than not running the risk of burning through a lot of combat rounds (and keeping the bloodshed to a minimum), what is the advantage of attacking with units set on minimize losses? This is an Eastern Front scenario (Kharkov '43). I think Bob Cross recommends that the Germans do just that on their first turn with his 41-45 scenario.

I seldom use minimise losses. Besides the situation you talk about above, I would potentially use it if I ran up against an enemy unit in a hex which was "observed" not "spotted", giving me no information about unit's condition. A minimise losses attack would then give a good idea of how potent the defender was, potentially dislodging them if weak, without producing excessive losses if the position was too strong.

quote:

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer , but with a new (to me) scenario I usually first let the AI play itself, to get a feel for the flow of the scenario (e.g. I cheat). (Since it's not PBEM, there is no one to complain).

That's not cheating anyway. It's not like an exam- you're allowed to look at the paper before you answer the questions.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)

Post #: 2

RE: Attacking at minimize losses? - 7/29/2013 5:07:16 AM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

I use Minimize Losses quite a bit against units with significantly worse proficiencies than mine. It reduces the chances of using all your combat rounds.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 3

RE: Attacking at minimize losses? - 7/30/2013 5:41:05 AM

sealclubber

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/2/2013
Status: offline

In 3.4, minimize losses is a must for heavily entrenched (fortified) units. Every attack on a fortified unit gives a chance to:
1. Dig it out of its entrenchments, although that is much more likely with naval/air/artillery assets in support.
2. A chance (albeit small) to cause it to retreat assuming it passes the baseline retreat check.
3. Weaken the unit without taking massive losses, which is necessary if you fail in the above two and still need that hex. Sufficiently weakened you can launch a heavy assault on a fortified hex without taking stupid losses. They'll still be heavy.
4. As governato pointed out, you generally don't want to burn 3-4 combat rounds on on attack. Atually you never want to burn that many rounds on one attack, but sometimes its necessary and you plan for it. Unexpected turn burn sucks.

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 4

RE: Attacking at minimize losses? - 7/30/2013 10:40:51 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

When I playtested my "Barbarosa 41" scenario I used min. losses attacks exclusively. I did that because min.losses seems to work
just fine to root out the nasty Soviets, even in stacks, and seems to leave my attacking units w/ more supply than the other settings.
So repeat attacks are not prohibitive and are even encouraged. I was working under low supply levels and min. losses attacks seemed
to be indicated in this instance.

(in reply to sealclubber)

Post #: 5