Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: gw15

I also noticed the Axis AI will do maybe 5-8 attacks on a hex until it finally routs my Russian units. I was going to post something if that was they way to do attacks in this game. Do 2,3, or 4 hasty attacks first and then do a major attack.
Is that a better strategy as opposed to do one large attack on the first battle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

They fixed the combat routines, the longer range unit firing was not working.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

- Changes made to ground combat. Increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired, while increasing the amount of fire at these longer ranges. Increased the number of rounds of combat between opening range and 50 yard combat. Opening ranges will be longer for clear and less dense terrain. Net effect of combat changes increases overall losses slightly.

quote:

A reconnaissance in force will result in reduced fighting and losses on both sides and the attacker will have no chance to cause a retreat. This result will be reflected by the combat resolution message “Defending forces were scouted.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: potski

I'm puzzled by this - do you think the combat results are "wacky" compared to WITE, earlier versions of WITE2, some other game, or what you imagine they should be from reading a book? This is not a simulation, but a game. Designed, true enough, to give a good approximation of the combat on the Eastern Front, but the test there should be in overall casualties on both sides over a period. Show us your Losses screen and we can compare this with losses IRL. And the test is whether the Germans manage to over-run the Soviets and capture Leningrad etc. before the winter of 1941. Not the outcome of any individual combat. It is the aggregate effect of many combats that matter.

The bug fix in the latest version Beta Update v01.01.15 includes the long-range firing fix. This seems to be particularly responsible for the first combat results. Here a nearly full strength Panzer Div does a hasty attack on two Rifle Divs in clear terrain. The Germans are outnumbered in men and guns 2:1, but that doesn't seem to be the reason the attack does not succeed. The Soviets are well-dug in (fort level 3), and despite the German firepower which is able to inflict significant casualties (5% losses), the General realises he cannot force the Soviets out of their fortified positions. The Hasty attack may have been done without adequate intelligence/scouting of the Soviet defences. He pulls out of the attack before committing his infantry or the tanks to close in on the Soviet lines. So ALL of the Soviet casualties must be inflicted at range. The German Div is hampered by the lack of any support units whatsoever. None are directly attached to the Div (as is normal in most of the German OOB in 1941) and none are committed from the Corps HQ. This is more likely in the case of a hasty attack, so that doesn't seem unusual. The Germans lack heavy artillery and in particular Engineer support to overcome the fort levels. They are not reduced at all. So despite the Soviet losses, they get to fight another day, presumably though they will be faced by a stronger force committed by the German AI, with a planned attack which is properly supported.

You can view far more info on the battle, but haven't provided it. Particularly the effect of the German air attacks. The Luftwaffe committed 79 bombers to ground support against the Soviets. So while the German infantry were saved by (perhaps a lucky) commander dice roll, enough force was applied against the hapless Soviet infantry to cause the losses. Hapless, because faced with nearly 200 tanks they were able to knock out only two of them. They had an AT support unit, but probably equipped with weapons which are just not good enough at range to inflict much damage. If the Germans had committed their forces to a close quarter battle, then I would expect their losses, both in men and tanks, to have been much greater. And that is my experience playing as the Germans, if attacking well dug-in Soviet infantry. Better in August 1941 to go round them, and leave them to be eliminated by infantry. If they are blocking the way, then committing Mot.Infantry rather a Panzer Div.

The other results are laughable that you bring these up. Sorry, but you have shown us a screenshot where two "light" Soviet units comprising each of only about 9,000 lightly equipped MILITIA and supported by a single artillery unit (77 guns) are standing in a clear hex faced with a properly planned attack from a Panzer CORPS (two Panzer Divs and a Mot. Div). The experienced German elite units not only outnumber the Soviet militia 2:1, but massively outgun them over 5:1 in numbers nevermind the quality of the weapons. So even without much other support, the Germans inflict high casualties on the Soviets, they **** their pants and run. Remember, those 6k Soviet casualties didn't need to be inflicted first by close in fighting, as soon as the militia lost their morale, they were doomed. And why wouldn't they, being faced with the massed ranks of over 400 tanks which they had no effective way to deal with. Many losses were inflicted in the rout. Or perhaps we can imagine that while most of the troops fled, a couple of battalions remained in their positions, were surrounded and they surrendered? I don't see the problem here, either in game terms or as a simulation of what actually happened. The professional Soviet units, mostly not used to combat (few had served in the Winter War or seen action against the Japanese) and poorly led, suffered exactly this fate when trying to prevent the advance of the Panzer Groups. The hastily pulled together militia were uselss - just there to try to delay the Germans. Whatever the Soviet propagandists say about the heroism of those men, many many lives were just thrown away.

In your third battle, the results are similar. Except that the Soviets retreat, rather than rout. So the Soviet Commander makes the dice roll to pull back, rather than risk his men routing, shattering or surrendering en masse. But it doesn't mean it is an orderly retreat, or that whole battalions are not left behind. In this case, it maybe just luck depending on the dice, but perhaps they were assisted in this by being in heavy woods, so the Germans couldn't quickly over-run their positions. Particularly they couldn't have used their over 200 tanks effectively, if at all. But the (at least) two Divs and a Regiment (we can't see if there were more units off the screen) from two separate Corps were heavily supported - at least four heavy artillery and a heavy rocket SU, and 10 points worth of Engineer support. So the Soviet defences in a fort level 1 hex would have very quickly crumbled. So we might imagine again the Germans needed only to deploy their heavy firepower at range, such as in a well coordinated artillery barrage, before the Soviet commander decided to retreat. They didn't need to deploy German infantry to fight hand to hand in the trenches.

My only question on this combat is that the Soviet Air Force did provide air support (30 fighters, 41 bombers), with no interception by the Luftwaffe. Not that I'm questioning the lack of Luftwaffe, as the panzers could have easily outrun the ability of the Luftwaffe to advance to new bases. But I would perhaps expect these Soviet planes might have caused more German losses. But we see seven of the bombers were lost, presumably shot down by flak. And the Germans had at least one AA support unit. This might have been sufficient to disrupt the Soviet air attacks. Again you don't show these details from the combat reports. But it doesn't appear to be anything unusual.

Surely your book tells you that even dug-in units in the summer of 1941 were largely, though not always, just rolled over? The game fails as a simulation only if there are never any instances of Germans outside of the main panzer thrust facing stubborn resistance and suffering losses, and the total casualties over a turn run to many thousands and tens of thousands over several turns. If the Axis forces get to the end of August 1941 and have losses of under 100,000 then I would be concerned. But I would be equally concerned if the Panzer Divs had suffered most of those losses, and the AI was using them to assault the cities or across rivers, or in heavily defended locations in bad terrain. The fact that the first example shows good generalship in NOT pressing the hasty attack is actually a good sign. Most of the German generals were particularly good at recognising situations where they would be throwing away the lives of their men in pointless attacks. But they weren't perfect, and some of the German attacks should suffer more than a handful of losses. And all of those losses in men and equipment must add up to numbers that the supply system, production and manpower pools cannot easily replace, as well as being somewhat close to IRL losses. And the immediate effect of several weeks of advancing in close contact with the enemy by these Panzer/Mot. Divs should be reflected in ways which are not clear from the combat reports - the effects of fatigue wearing down their combat power, and the deterioration of their supply situation.

Plus, their total losses in manpower should not be just the sum of the losses in these combat reports, but also reflect the constant friction in minor skirmishes, scouting patrols etc. Men were lost from the front line even when there was no planned battle taking place. And I am sure that my losses at the end of the turn playing as the Germans in 1941 are far more than I see in the combat reports.

So the "black box" appears to be working. The developers don't need to reveal the internal mechanics of the game to players for us to see whether it is working. Sure it makes it difficult to spot if there is a bug, such as that fixed by the latest patch. But to prove these results are atypical in the game, or compared to the historical results, you have to provide much more than a feeling that three combats are wacky. It's as if you haven't actually noticed that your units faced the schwerpunkt of a German Panzer Group advance? And in one you were deploying militia.

But I will say, as I have no experience of playing as the Soviets against a German AI, that it does appear that your reports show the AI keeps the Panzer Groups together, and doesn't just randomly spread them along the front. Especially pleasing that in August (so I think beyond the scripted first few turns) that a planned attack on a hex includes units from two Mot.Corps operating together. And I hope, carving a path through your feeble efforts to stop them. Not a personal criticism of you, but the feeble Soviet units, their equipment, morale and leadership, you have to work with. You cannot do much combat damage to the German Panzer Groups, all you can do is slow them down, forcing them to expend MP and waste CPP. Your greatest ally before the autumn rain is combat damaged hexes, bad terrain and the rail gauge. I cannot imagine that playing as the Soviets in 1941 is a very fulfilling experience. But good luck to you if you choose to try it. Then tell us there is a problem if the German AI holds Leningrad, Moscow or Rostov by 1 December 1941, and it's forces are still in good condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

At 120 morale help, the AI gets something that we started calling "tac nukes" in testing. Basically a bunch of disruption is placed on the defender (and some damage, IIRC), before the battle even begins. That's how you can see the AI doing a hasty attack and the defender not doing much of anything. The only way you can really judge the combat system is in 100/100 straight up games. A lot of changes were made recently in combat and we think it's pretty good now, although the AFV losses are probably a bit too high.