|
Walloc -> RE: GC41 - Saper222 (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) (No Saper222) (6/27/2012 4:56:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kamil
New month, new turn, same old problems. I really sometimes have impression, that I will be beaten regardless of my CV.
(All German attacks undertaken against something more than tank brigades)
Im some what amazed that it isnt until now that ppl starting to realize this. U can kick out an enemy of a hex recording X CV and then see the exact same units getting beaten back, displaying a wholly different modified CV in defending than attacking. Well not many realise this fully yet, so we have far from seen the full of extend of this.
This is nothing new at all. Just seems that since more have mentioned it lately so more is noticing it is my guess.
I did alot sandbox testing. This is an average of both sides, not that it does affect the 2 sides equally, but it do affect both sides, but more on that later. A unit with exact same fatigue, exact same leader, exact same ranges to leader directly and above and so on and on will have a modified attacking CV 2.71 times higher, than the exact same unit, with above exact same conditions will have as that units defending modified CV. With the conditions being exactly the same for the opposite side at any time too. In short CV wise a unit is on average is 2.71 more effecient in attacking than in defending. Assuming that u use the HQs "correctly". Math changes totally if u break the command ranges.
The way the engine work attacking simply bias a units modified CV. For a unit to have the same CV effeciency in defending it would have to have a lvl 2 fort or equal modifiers to get just above getting the same CV effeciency when defending.
So while its easy to kick back the germans in the blizzard as u do since the CV will be modified wholly different with him áttacking its just as easy for him to kick u back when he is attacking. The dynamics of modified CV works greater than modifier for the blizzard, not that blizzard doesnt have an very real effect. It would been worse in these cases with out the blizzard, not that it matters as he gets the 2-1 to kick u back which is what he is after.
Since GHC generally have better leaders, the actual average if differentiated between the sides comes out with on average in favor the GHC if u look at the different sides indvidually.
It doesnt stop there tho. I dont think many realize the impact that the rules descriped in 11.3.2 has on modified CV in practical play. As the command structure is different in GHC vs SHC side, the non use of corps HQs on SHC side, means that for leader check failed at the first level gets modified differently for the 2 sides. This means a skill 7 leader isnt the same as a skill lvl 7 leader on one side as the other in regards to this. Assuming ppl know how this works u will see the effects of this much more prone to failing on the defending side than on the attacking side. Creating a futher differential in modfied CV cuz of a higher chance of failed rolls.
An attacking side can circumvent the range modifier by moving HQs around to be close to the actual attack, where defending side/non phasing player naturally dont have this ability.
Moving it to new attacks as they occur and possibly back away from front lines to avoid leader death rolls at end of turn. Again as MP for HQs isnt equal for the 2 sides, there is a gap in the ability to use this at each side.
Since one of the sides generally have poorer generals and that sides modified range wise is in effect worse than other side, then that side will naturally fail rolls even more, degrading the defending CV more than same side attacking as it can as the attacking side as per above descriped can circumvent the "hardness" of the roll.
When u start taking these things all together it sorta creates a perfect storm. Ppl have for long wondered why for example well entrenched cities fall so easily. Well if u can attack from several hexes creating a concentration of force, have an inert bias in attacking vs defending modfied CV, espcially if one side is then hampered per above command range modifier its no wonder that lvl 3 and 4 fort in cities fall with ease.
Why Leningrad is so hard to defend when the terrain historicly hambered the GHC. The effect of CV is at a point where terrain simply matters less, again not that it doesnt have a real effect. Why do u have an endless soviet steamroller late game. U are simply much more effecient attacking than defending so when u get rolling u get rolling.The equalibrium for defending vs attack is so narrow. Ofc if u know this as GHC u can use this but ppl tend mentally to fall into a im defending now state.
I know and i agree in the lackings of the supply system, but IMHO the way the modifying CV part of the combat engine works its just as big part in why steam rolling occures in this game.
Again as ppl start to see the possibilties in this and realize that ur CV is much more efficient in attacking than defending this can change the behavoir of playing. Changing some of the dynamics of the current game. Alot of this is in essence alrdy realized by ppl and used tho not knowing exactly why it occcur.
One can only guess that Gary isnt a big Clausewitz fan. Defending being the stronger of the type of stances. Then there is a popular saying the best defense is an attack.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
|
|
|
|
