Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense

Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns Series >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue

Message

abulbulian -> Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 2:41:57 AM)
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.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 4:52:08 AM)
Yep. Historically, unless something truly exceptionally amazingly stupendously lucky happened for Soviets and equal and opposite for Germans, AT gun unit by itself = speed bump. Against most of a division = not much of a speed bump. I suspect that it's because a DC:CB treats the artillerists and support elements of non-infantry units as infantry, whereas, in reality, they were not and should not be treated as such ... unless sent back to the pool by disbanding the unit. Artillery and support troops could act as Infantry, but rarely did well, man for man, in that role compared to real infantry. In reality, they should be a separate troop type and, when not actually manning their artillery pieces, should suffer significant penalties on that base type which, in turn, should be much less effective than infantry. Phil

Templer_12 -> That's just not that simple! (8/7/2012 5:34:51 AM)
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!

aspqrz02 -> RE: That's just not that simple! (8/7/2012 9:37:29 AM)
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! Well, it's simpler than you think. Unless the LAH was completely out of fuel and ammo, cut off from all resupply and hope of resupply, and had been savaged to the point where it was a mere Kampfgruppe shadow of its former self and the Russian AT Brigade was actually equipped with SU-152s or the like, then, really, it would make no difference at all ... 2/3rds of a German mechanised division would go through it like a hot knife through butter. Towed AT units, and that's what we're talking about, were organised to be used in conjunction with infantry units. They simply could not stand against mobile forces, except as a speed bump, because they could not defend their flanks and rear in any useful way. They needed to Infantry to cover their retreat and repositioning when they'd gotten off their one or two shots and had been pinpointed and were attracting enough fire to be destroyed, as a general rule. With infantry backing them up, they could move position ... or be protected enough so they didn't have to move position (Tanks by themselves against dug in infantry with good morale, are pretty useless for the most part, too) ... but against a mechanised combined arms unit, SS or not, they're generally dead meat. So, unless, as I noted, some amazingly stupendously cosmic lucky event happened ... all the German fuel trucks were hit by a meteor shower or something ... the Russians would be doing well to delay for a few hours, maybe half a day if they were realistically lucky ... no more. Phil

abulbulian -> RE: That's just not that simple! (8/7/2012 11:00:31 AM)
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! Are you being serious? Hope not. But just in case you are trying to support this nonsense. It was clear weather and unit was in low mnt. Sure, mnt .. but I have one of the best formations send 2/3 of it's troops against a single AT unit with low exp and morale. Also, I bombed the troops - well lol in DC bombing is kinda of a joke as it rarely does much IMO. LAH units had 66AP left (had used speed card on it previously). REMEMBER this was T1 and those 2 units of LAH had not attacked previously in the turn. Either way, this unit would never had been able to accomplish what it did WITH ALL the parameters you now know. Maybe if I had send in a second rate German formation that had a low TOE%, the AT unit could have held it off. I have spend plenty of time researching the war in the east. I'd be happy at any time putting my knowledge up against anybody else on this forum. It's not that big a deal for a new game like DCCB. I remember how many bugs were found in WitE that allowed tiny NKVD units of 1k men to hold up an entire PZ div. They eventually fixed them, so I'm hoping Vic can get this issues sorted out as well. Game needs to have some semblance of realism for the hard-core war gamers. It's not a fantasy game.

aspqrz02 -> RE: That's just not that simple! (8/7/2012 11:34:11 AM)
I think the problem is that many people playing wargames, computer ones, at least, really see them as a slightly more difficult version of "Total War" and the level of unreality that you get in that sort of game. You, on the other hand (and I, as well), obviously have a more historically grounded background ... have read widely, to boot ... and know most of the obvious things that simply couldn't have been done/have happened ... and probably know a fair few of the less obvious ones as well, and a few of the obscure ones (dunno about you, but I, personally, still find myself amazed at some of the things that have come out recently in the study of WW2, and the Eastern Front in particular) ... and, of course, it seems fairly obvious, have a more specific interest in the military side of things, rather than "merely" the historical (which is more or less my interests as well), and that will generally put you several cuts above even those who are well read historically, but don't have the military context/knowledge to understand the events fully. Cut him a little slack [;)] Phil

elmo3 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 12:08:36 PM)
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.

James Ward -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 1:10:18 PM)
I don't know about AT units but artillery was not meant to be in direct combat. These should be easy to win against using just a moderate amount of ground force.

olivier34 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 1:29:51 PM)
let's run some test. I will if I find some time. This AT unit has hold during 24 hours the LAH. Why not if a defensive card have been played on them and they had a week to fortified in this low mountain hex and they got lucky during the fight. I had one div stopped by an HQ unit and a few hundred men in a low mountain hex...I had play a card to boost the attack...

aspqrz02 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 1:29:55 PM)
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

ComradeP -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 1:48:02 PM)
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.

abulbulian -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 2:42:37 PM)
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. That is the problem, it's not one failed attacked. This issue with lone AT and ARTY units conducting superman like defense feats is an ongoing theme I've been reading. So it's hardly just my game. I guessing some others may not realize the unhistorical nature of this issue given their knowledge of the war in the east. Which is fine and understandable. But I have issues with this modeling.

abulbulian -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 2:45:23 PM)
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. Yes, completely agree and really don't like that modeling at all. Why? Because it's nonsensical. [:-]

bwheatley -> RE: That's just not that simple! (8/7/2012 2:52:47 PM)
Other then neither side losing anything I'm not completely shocked. Pre-attack bombardment [image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/t1_atgun.png[/image] Attack [image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/t1_atgun1.png[/image] Unit after [image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/t1_atgun2.png[/image] Good experience (for a russian unit on t1 compared to some i have), decent morale and decent entrenchment coupled with low mountains (-50% to motorized). I'd have expected someone to at least die on both sides.

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 2:58:13 PM)
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 That's actually a pretty good idea about giving artillery units 2nd rate infantry. Or maybe cut the amount of soldiers in an AT formation.

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 2:59:41 PM)
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. Ya that's been the way the AT engine has been since the beginning. Once you get units entrenchment down and readiness down you really start the slaughter.

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 3:03:34 PM)
[image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/t1_atgun3.png[/image] Just for complete clarify the infantry portion had even better entrenchment than the unit avg. Not great for mountains but 98 is not bad. 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.

elmo3 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 3:56:25 PM)
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. Yeah I would have expected a unit with 45 AT guns and infantry support, well dug in, with OK morale and in low mountains to have shredded quite a bit of that German armor trying to attack them. So again it looks more to me like the LAH just balked at attacking for some reason and that was the reason for no casualties. If this sort of 0 loss result happens a lot then maybe the combat results need to be tweaked a bit. But I would not have expected this unit to just roll over and die as some have suggested here. Many German accounts of the war have described how hard it was to root Soviet defenders out of well entrenched positions. Edit - And note the very high integrity of that AT unit (94). It won't break until that drops to below 50 IIRC.

alex0809 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 5:10:01 PM)
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)

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 5:14:45 PM)
It's a fairly simple matter to mod the SFT types, add a new class of 2nd rate infantry and equip all the AT, Arty and HQ units with those. Someone? I'm a bit too busy with my graphics mod ATM.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 5:37:42 PM)
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). [image]local://upfiles/27287/7076908A802545C4A684DBAC5E3CFCAE.jpg[/image]

Templer_12 -> For visualization (8/7/2012 7:06:58 PM)
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) For visualization. In the German Movie by Joseph Vilsmaier, Stalingrad, there is a scene in which a handful of German infantry men with a single anti-tank cannon prevent a breakthrough of several Russian tanks and infantry. Enjoy: Movie Stalingrad part 8

alex0809 -> RE: For visualization (8/7/2012 7:23:23 PM)
How many times have I watched that movie :D one of the best ones ever made.. if not THE best one!

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 7:29:55 PM)
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). [image]local://upfiles/27287/7076908A802545C4A684DBAC5E3CFCAE.jpg[/image] If it's the same editor at least that ATG has you can write a script that will loop through the map hexes looking for units that have both atgun sftype and inf stfype then kill the inf sftype in that unit then replace them with 2nd rate sftype. Though I don't necessarily think with this case it was something related to entrenchment because nobody got hurt. I wish we had a way to view combat detail for battles past so he could reopen the battle details to see what happened.

balto -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 7:55:33 PM)
+1 on the being able to see battles that have already occurred in the present turn.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 8:34:10 PM)
I draw the line at graphics mods, I'm afraid. Writing scripts is above my pay grade.

ComradeP -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 9:03:02 PM)
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.

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 9:19:54 PM)
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. I for one really do like the new arty system. In AT/G it always used to be use uber stack of arty to kill everyone. Then vic added the battlestack stuff which helped but still arty was way too strong. I like this system you can shoot every turn but you won't be as effective as if you shoot every 2-3 turns. Have you looked at the supply status for your planes in unit details? The way readiness works is you have to have extra supply to actually gain readiness back. So i wonder if you look at OKH supply details and see if you have enough supply. With my german vs Ai game i try to rest my planes every 3rd turn so they can get ahead with readiness recovery and it gives me a break for oil/supply usage for when they carry out bombing runs.

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 9:45:46 PM)
Here is an example i had in the same terrain as abulbulian had with my germans. The AT guns had 85 entrenchment. And for my tanks they started their turn there so they had plenty of AP to go through all 10 rounds. I know in our pbem game LAH had come from a few hexes back so i think they basically ran out of AP. You'll see in this example those AT guns whopped some of my tanks too. :) [image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/atnotbroken2.png[/image] [image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/atnotbroken.png[/image]

olivier34 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 10:15:35 PM)
I had made some test this afternoon, and I had chosen to attack the same AT on the map [;)] It is not the LAH but the 16th panzer. I will run the same test after a recon on the hex and an air strike. [image]local://upfiles/35042/7DBBF00049BE498DA91F4C1F22692045.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75