Beethoven1
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla
Are we trying to address an issue with losses or battle result?
To me, there are three main problematic parts that simply feel somehow off, neither of which is directly a matter of losses or who wins. I would be fine with whoever wins in a given battle, as long as there is good logical/historical/realistic reason for it to be that way.
The parts that seem off, however, are:
1) Displayed CV values do not reflect that urban combat is apparently basically determined by numbers of elements, not by their quality. This is really just a display issue, not necessarily something actually wrong with how the combat itself works, but it would be nice if the CV calculation in urban terrain could be adjusted to display values more in accordance with the actual likely outcomes of combat. E.g. If I am attacking 10k men in an elite unit with 100k really badly trained men in urban terrain, before I attack the CV odds should look something like 5 to 1 in my favor or something, because I am likely to win, rather than appearing even (because the displayed urban defensive CV is giving too much weight to the defender's quality, and not enough to their quantity).
2) Combat intensity is ALWAYS very high in urban terrain - It makes sense that urban combat CAN be very high intensity, like in Stalingrad, but should it really ALWAYS be?
3) Units routing when losing a battle defending an urban hex - The problem I have here is not necessarily with units losing a battle, and also not necessarily even with them taking high losses. The problem is really just that it doesn't seem like the "rout" mechanic makes sense here. When units rout, there are a couple special mechanics that come into play, and it feels like they ought not to necessarily apply in these sorts of cases where all that has really happened is you have lost a battle in urban terrain:
a) Routed units tend to take a larger than normal retreat losses.
b) Routed units tend to take a larger than normal morale hit.
c) Routed units can't be used in combat the next turn (unless they are rallied) and can be displaced.
The implication of those 3 thins are basically that the unit is in a TOTALLY disorganized and completely trashed, irrecoverable, totally combat-incapable state.
And since basically every unit that loses a battle in urban terrain routs, the implication of that is that it is basically impossible to defend urban terrain without becoming totally disorganized and irrecoverably, completely trashed. Is that really realistic? Basically it seems like the commanders in these battles in urban terrain are having their units fight to the death, and refusing to make any sort of tactical retreats to prevent disaster, whereas if you have the same commanders defending in other terrain, after they have taken significant losses and it is clear that they can't hold their ground, they will break off the combat and retreat.
Is it really impossible to do a considered tactical retreat in an urban area? Is the only possible way to defend urban terrain by sitting in a position and holding it to the death, never retreating, never being the slightest bit cautious or concerned about preventing the total loss of unit cohesion, and never withdrawing before your troops get to that state?
And does it really make sense for any unit that loses a battle, just because it has been fighting in urban terrain, to take extra retreat losses from routing (on top of the high losses from the combat itself), to take an extra morale hit, and to be in a routed state where they can be displaced? So I would suggest that maybe there should be something like a special adjustment, where units that rout from urban terrain simply due to numerical superiority of the attacker should not have those 3 special characteristics of routed units. They would simply be weak units which retreat, but with high enough losses that would normally be associated with being routed in other terrain types.
Of course, there were cases when units in urban terrain did famously fight basically to the point of total exhaustion, like in Stalingrad. But did this always happen and nobody ever did a tactical withdrawal in urban terrain? It seems like maybe fighting to the death in urban terrain should be an option. Perhaps in urban hexes the defending player could have an extra option to select "fight to the death: not one step back" similarly to how you can select statuses like refit/ready/reserve. Instead of that, for urban hexes you would have an extra option like refit/ready/reserve/hold_at_all_costs. You would then only select the hold_at_all_costs option if you actually want your defending troops to hold at all costs, or alternatively put them on "ready" if you want them to retreat if they are losing the battle and will take excessive losses and becoming totally disorganized to the point of routing if they keep on fighting.
So to review, 3 suggestions/ideas from thinking through this:
1) Make it so that units that rout while defending urban terrain don't take the extra retreat losses and morale hits that routed units normally take. So this would be like a "non-rout rout." And also make them, at least for the duration of the enemy's move, not be displaced simply because the enemy moves next to them. The fact that you can displace units that lose a battle defending urban terrain really seems to escalate the losses from losing an urban defense beyond what makes sense, and it can make it EASIER to get a breakthrough through urban terrain than non-urban terrain, since if you attack in non-urban terrain the enemy will retreat and then you have to re-attack them, which requires additional MP and creates additional combat delay. Whereas in urban terrain, if you win a battle, then the defending units are useless and you can just drive straight through them and displace them.
If you wanted, this could be subject to some morale checks or something, and depend on the morale of the unit also. Maybe it makes sense for some low quality units defending urban terrain to be totally incapable of anything at all afterwards, but even a very experienced, high morale infantry division can't even put up a minor delaying action to cover their retreat just because they have lost in an urban hex???
2) Add an additional unit status for "fight to the death" which can only be selected if you are defending urban terrain. If you select this, then any attacks in urban terrain will not be broken off until either the attack has failed, or until your unit has been thoroughly trashed down to a depleted state. Whereas if you don't select this, then your unit will retreat once it is clear that it is going to lose,
3) Change the displayed CV on urban terrain to more accurately reflect actual urban combat. In urban terrain, it seems that basically the only relevant factor is how many men you have. So, supposing that you have 10,000 men, then your displayed CV should maybe be 10. If you have 20,000 men, then your displayed CV should maybe be 20. Not necessarily that of course, but something more similar to that. This really seems like just a display issue, which could maybe be fixed by tweaking the way that display CVs are calculated just for urban hexes to give greater weight to the number of elements you have, and less weight to their quality.
< Message edited by Beethoven1 -- 1/25/2022 12:22:55 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Urban terrain combat balance - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread