RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense

RE: 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

ComradeP -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 10:33:53 PM)
quote: 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. Perhaps, but if you nerf artillery because it's too powerful, it's not ideal to keep an entrenchment system in place that more or less requires the usage of artillery to give reasonable results. I don't want artillery to cause serious amounts of casualties, I want artillery that can reduce entrenchment levels. Even fully supplied artillery units don't perform all that well.

Toby42 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 11:28:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: 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. Perhaps, but if you nerf artillery because it's too powerful, it's not ideal to keep an entrenchment system in place that more or less requires the usage of artillery to give reasonable results. I don't want artillery to cause serious amounts of casualties, I want artillery that can reduce entrenchment levels. Even fully supplied artillery units don't perform all that well. But didn't artillery cause the most casualties in WWII?

abulbulian -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 11:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 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. umm, I think you need to think about the following before make such a silly comment as "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." Here's why: 1 - I didn't attack with the Pz Regiment, rather the 2 Pz Grenadier Regiment, thus a lot of inf support 2 - this AT unit is trying to cover 10km (I believe hex) by itself. So how much can it effectively cover with with 45 AT guns and 400 troops? Will let you do the math. 3 - If the guns are concentrated, then the unit would just bypass and hit them from the rear or some other envelopment tactic. 4 - The L.A.H. was one of the top units to fight on the eastern front. 5 - Overall leadership and tactics of the Germans was at this point in the war still far superior to the Soviets Thus, were not talking about some moronic charge by the L.A.H. units onto the AT guns. If so, then why both having officer with stats, staff with exp, units with morale/exp??? What is the point if everything in the combat engine given what you just said. I would go back to playing Axis and Allies if I didn't care about some of the realism the combat engine and unit/leader details are suppose to add to the experience of the game.

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 11:32:28 PM)
OOps earlier i pasted the wrong pic..i've edited and fixed it but for those who didn't see it earlier. [image]http://witewiki.com/billfiles/games/dc2/images/t1_atgun1.png[/image]

abulbulian -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 11:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Treale quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: 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. Perhaps, but if you nerf artillery because it's too powerful, it's not ideal to keep an entrenchment system in place that more or less requires the usage of artillery to give reasonable results. I don't want artillery to cause serious amounts of casualties, I want artillery that can reduce entrenchment levels. Even fully supplied artillery units don't perform all that well. But didn't artillery cause the most casualties in WWII? Yes, but it was actually mortars that caused the most. Artillery got nerfed in this game and is really no longer a problem. You can only basically fire it effectively from a unit every 3 turn, due to ammo resupply rules. IMO artillery is a bit to weak, but the bigger issues is how bogus the amount of damage level bombers do. I've seen up to 100 level bombers hitting hexes and kill nothing. To me for trained crews in clear weather in open terrain is sheer nonsense. What is the point of the planes? They were a lot more effective in the real war than what is represented in DCCB. Guessing it's just some crutch to balance some parts of the game better. [&:]

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/7/2012 11:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abulbulian quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 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. umm, I think you need to think about the following before make such a silly comment as "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." Here's why: 1 - I didn't attack with the Pz Regiment, rather the 2 Pz Grenadier Regiment, thus a lot of inf support 2 - this AT unit is trying to cover 10km (I believe hex) by itself. So how much can it effectively cover with with 45 AT guns and 400 troops? Will let you do the math. 3 - If the guns are concentrated, then the unit would just bypass and hit them from the rear or some other envelopment tactic. 4 - The L.A.H. was one of the top units to fight on the eastern front. 5 - Overall leadership and tactics of the Germans was at this point in the war still far superior to the Soviets Thus, were not talking about some moronic charge by the L.A.H. units onto the AT guns. If so, then why both having officer with stats, staff with exp, units with morale/exp??? What is the point if everything in the combat engine given what you just said. I would go back to playing Axis and Allies if I didn't care about some of the realism the combat engine and unit/leader details are suppose to add to the experience of the game. The whole no casualties thing seems like a bug to me. Especially since you said you had enough AP.

wodin -> RE: For visualization (8/8/2012 1:27:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alex0809 How many times have I watched that movie :D one of the best ones ever made.. if not THE best one! Shame about the atrocious dubbing...superb film though.

aspqrz02 -> RE: For visualization (8/8/2012 1:40:34 AM)
Yes, a few infantry and a single AT gun may well be able to prevent advancing tanks where the tanks have little or no infantry support and are advancing through a choke point. However, a full division attack, even along a single hex side, versus a single AT Brigade ... a German mechanised Division is 10-14k men at full strength, while a Russian AT Brigade would, typically, be, maybe, 1500 men at full strength. Then, consider the time and hex scale ... 1-2 *days* per turn and, what, *25 klicks* per hex? Even in low hills, across one hexside (what, say 8-10 klicks across), can anyone seriously believe that 1500 men can defend against flanking attacks by ten times their number for two days? And, at 8 klicks across, that's only about 200 defenders per klick of frontage vs. 1500 attackers per klick of frontage. You'all do know that odds of 3:1 are what is sufficient to win more often than not in combat, and that odds of 10:1 would routinely be a walkover? Even low hills won't change this sufficiently for the simple reason (one amongst many) that those 1500 Germans per klick won't be attacking on a broad front, whereas the defenders have to defend that self-same broad front, and in depth, to. In reality, the mobility of the German mech unit will allow them to concentrate at the defender's weak spot(s) ... say they hold 7 of the 8 klicks of the front with the same amount of men as the defenders deploy ... 1400 men ... and use the remaining 8500-12500 men to concentrate on a mere 1 klick, carefully chosen to not be a choke point (and this is low hills, not impassable mountains, remember ... there will be many many many many easy routes through) ... that gives them odds of 40-60:1! Is there anyone out there with a basic knowledge of military tactics that can seriously tell me of a single instance anywhere where 200 men have held up 8500-12600 men for two whole days in a non-chokepoint position? Seriously? Phil

LiquidSky -> RE: For visualization (8/8/2012 2:27:07 AM)
Oh, probably. Could be many reasons. Could be the divisonal commander was back at corp HQ discussing the up coming attack. Could be a lot of delays in moving men/supply up due to partisans/weather/enemy air interdiction behind the lines. Problem is you are fixated on assuming the division is on the attack just because you waved your hands and hit a button. Surely somebody with a basic knowledge of military tactics can think of a few instances when there was a day or two delay in launching an attack. Even against 200 men. But all this is moot...the designer has already said even before this thread started that there is a problem with lone AT/Art and even HQ's on the defence and is going to fix it.

aspqrz02 -> Soviet AT Artillery Brigades (8/8/2012 2:28:28 AM)
Evidently these consisted of two AT Artillery Regiments. TO&E of a Soviet AT Artillery Regiment, Winter 42/43 (Nafziger 942RXAG) 10 LMGs, 80 SMGs, 20 76.2mm AT guns, 20 AT rifles, 1 passenger vehicle, 68 trucks, 6 horse drawn wagons, 11 radios, total of 460 men. No actual infantry. All are artillerists or support personnel. TO&E of a Russian AT Artillery Brigade, November 1943 (Nafziger 943RKXB) 2 LMGs, 390 submacnine guns, 144 AT rifles, 36 ampule throwers, 8 82mm mortars, 4 120mm mortars, 16 76.2mmguns , 12 45mm guns, 4 37mm AA guns, 4 passenger vehicles, 187 light trucks, 16 motorcycles, 3 radios. (Includes only 1 AT Regiment, but this is supplemented by 1 Mortar Battalion, 1 Pioneer Battalion (330 men, really only a large Company), 1 SMG Company (100 men)) Now, seriously, tell me again how this unit, even at full strength, can defend a 8 klick frontage with no real choke points (or none the Germans have to go through) for two days against a German Panzer Division, or even 2/3 of a Panzer Division? Can't = Speed Bump. Phil

aspqrz02 -> RE: For visualization (8/8/2012 2:30:48 AM)
With the greatest of respect, the only way your ... creative thinking ... works is when the Russian Flying Pig Squadron dumps on all the German optics, blinding them. No other way. Phil

elmo3 -> RE: Soviet AT Artillery Brigades (8/8/2012 2:39:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz ... Now, seriously, ... Seriously, you are taking this way too seriously. [:'(] It's a game with many abstractions including combat results. Military history is replete with examples of outnumbered defenders holding out way longer than anyone expected. But somehow I doubt you would be convinced even if anyone could be bothered to quote them here. You have made up your mind the game is broken because of one combat result you don't think is possible and you are entitled to that opinion. Others disagree. Ultimately it will be up to Vic to decide if his game is working as intended or not.

LiquidSky -> RE: For visualization (8/8/2012 2:48:12 AM)
Really? German divisions attacked all the time? Never rested for two days? Never had to be resupplied? Refueled? Never suffered delays due to partisans? Rain? And while they are waiting/resting/refitting it wouldnt matter if 200 men or 200 flying pigs were in front of them, since they ARENT ATTACKING. See if you know where this battle took place. It happens on the Case Blue map during the timeframe of the game. 30 russians successfully defend against dozens of tanks, hundreds of germans, destroying a dozen tanks with a single anti tank rifle. For almost a MONTH. But hey...everyone knows there is a problem. The dev knows there is a problem. I know there is a problem. You know there is a problem. The problem will be fixed. End of Problem.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 6:32:24 AM)
Well, depending on whether a Soviet AT Artillery Brigade is 2 x 480 man Regiments or 1 Regiment + another 500 supporting troops, of which 100 are SMG Infantry and 330 are Pioneers (who can act as Infantry in a pinch), they have less than 1000 men all up ... According to Glantz (and other sources) your typical non-Guards unit was 40-60% understrength (in Main sectors, up to 80% understrength in secondary sectors) at any given time, that would mean far, far less than 1000 men. In mid/late 42 most German Mechanised Divisions (10000-14000 TO&E strength) would be at least 75% strength or more. So, regardless of how you cut it, its gonna be either a) No infantry and only artillerists and support troops, perhaps as few as 200, probably around 500) 0r b) 20-60 SMG Infantry, 65-200 Pioneers + artillerists and support troops, perhaps another 100-250) against 7500-9000 Germans And the Germans are fully mechanised (or close enough thereto) offensively and defensively while the Russians can dig and fight, and be immobile, or hitch up and run, and get slaughtered. Towed artillery units by themselves against mechanised units truly are speed-bumps. They would only ever be deliberately deployed in conjunction with Infantry in the defense, the Infantry being needed to screen them. In DC:CB the TO&E Strengths are ... Soviet AT Battalion (it's not actually listed as either a Regiment or Brigade ... it probably represents a single Regiment, therefore, as Soviet "Regiments" were often of a strength that other armies would have called Battalions anyway) 400 Infantry 25 Heavy AT 25 Light AT 150 trucks which doesn't represent either the actual TO&E for an AT Regiment (460 men, 20 ATG, 20 ATR, 68 Trucks, 1 Car, 6 Horse Waggons) or an AT Brigade (16 ATG, 12 Lt ATG, 8 Medium & 4 Heavy Mortars, 187 Trucks, 16 Motorcycles, 4 Cars, 100 Infantry, 330 Pioneer) Either its meant to represent the Battalion, and has far, far, far too many trucks and the "Infantry" should either be subsumed in the gun's values rather than listed separately, or the "Infantry" should be second rate, and reduced ability. Phil

aspqrz02 -> RE: Soviet AT Artillery Brigades (8/8/2012 6:44:42 AM)
Indeed there are examples where outnumbered defenders have held out against vastly superior odds ... and I have no problem with any such being specifically described. Why? Because the ones that you will find will, as far as I am aware, only describe situations where the defenders were in a situation where they controlled a choke point that minimised the number of attackers that could get at them at any one time, and which prevented them from being easily outflanked, and which allowed them to concentrate their strength on a very narrow frontage ... None of which applies to 1000 men (more likely 200-500) attempting to stop 10000-14000 (more likely 9-12000) men in low hills. Where there is no choke point for them to defend. Where there is no way they can concentrate on a narrow defensive front and not be outflanked ... and so on. Sure, the 300 Spartans held the 70000 or so Persians off for three days. In a narrow defile where the poorly armoured and poorly armed Persians could only approach a few hundred at a time. Once the Persians found the outflanking route? Less than a day ... and wiped out to a man (or maybe to 1-2 men, depending on which story you believe) ... and why didn't the Spartans run when they knew they'd be outflanked the next day? Lots of reasons. Probably the main one being ... once they did, it was to run into open terrain where the Persian "mechanised" units would simply outrun them, surround them, and either slaughter them themselves or hold them till the Persian main force infantry came up ... and slaughter them. They could kill more Persians by remaining where they were, as the approach was constricted from both directions, and they were all going down, anyway ... not much of a choice. And, as I said, they went down in less than a day, at the end. With two day turns in low hills, with no choke points? You tell me of a checkable example where a basically immobile small force held an 8 klick frontage for two days against a fully mobile force 20 times their size and you may have a point. I won't hold my breath ... As for the game? Well, as I said, the solution is either subsume the vast majority of the manpower strength of an artillery unit into to artillery, to be lost when the tube(s) are lost, or to make it much reduced strength second line infantry, or probably both. Having it as it stands is double counting. Is the game broken? Not even close. It needs some tweaking, is all, so units perform in a historically realistic manner. And if I was playing the Russians I would never put my AT units in a hex by themselves, as per Soviet doctine ... maybe the AI needs tweaking as well? Modifications can handle it, and there aren't a humongous number of Sov AT units anyway. Phil

marcpennington -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 6:57:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Treale But didn't artillery cause the most casualties in WWII? This is borderline OT, but I've been curious on that question for a while. The only place I can think I've ever read that "fact" (and it has stuck in my mind) is the documentation on the SSG Decisive Battles games, which claimed something like 80% of casualties were from artillery, in part to (perhaps) justify the immense power of artillery in their game system . As far as I can recall, I've never read a breakdown of losses by weapon system anywhere else, let alone one so dramatic. Does anyone have a source on that statistic, or detailed statistical analysis on causes of casualties? My suspicion is that maybe the high artillery percentage is tied to SLA Marshall's whole argument that no one really ever fired their rifle, which has been since thoroughly debunked.

Forever -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 8:43:33 AM)
Hello sorry for my English, but translators are still not perfect When it comes to defending small fieldcommanders against overwhelming odds is a good example would be Wiziny Defense Unfortunately I can not give links but paste in browser pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obrona_Wizny youtube.com/watch?v=0GmjeVrLEbA&feature=related - > Sabaton - 40-1 Such episodes have happened but not too often

aspqrz02 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 9:22:03 AM)
Using Google Translate and looking at the map this battle, while certainly a brave defense, is not relevant. For a start, it's not a single Artillery unit, even though its around 400 men or less, if I read the (badly) translated web page correctly (Google Translate is nowhere near perfect). It's a series of layered or linked or supporting fortified defense positions. Secondly, it's at a choke point that minimises mechanised movement ... those swamps shown on the map ... so it could only be attacked on a narrow front and the defenders could defend just that narrow front. And, as far as I can tell, it's not an 8 klick frontage ... but it's hard to tell as there is no scale on the map (or none that I can read, anyway). Interesting. Brave. If the example being cited in this thread was a unit in concrete, mutually supporting, fortifications defending a choke point that restricted attacker access and/or attacker opportunities to outflank them, I'd expect it to last ... about 2 days ... against a division sized attack. However, that isn't the case. Phil

Keunert -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 12:30:52 PM)
let's take a look at the example bwheatly and olivier posted: the defending unit is in suitable terrain (common) the unit has an entrenchment level that needed 3turns/6days of preparation (extraordinary) the attacker has to fight with a terrain penalty (uncommon) the attacker has not full AP the attacker has no air or artillery support (uncommon). two times out of five the unit was able to hold the hex. three times it was dislocated. under such circumstances an attack should only be made if the result is worth the hassle this situation is almost exclusive to the first turn the level of preparation would mean that you have to rail AT units way back and only be able to use them every fourth turn. a more realistic scenario should be tested: defenders fall back to suitable terrain with good autoentrench, a sole AT unit is deployed in a sector with likely Panzer attacks. entrenchment will be a lot lower and the results will favour the attacker more.

James Ward -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 1:15:05 PM)
In a tactial game I could see 'heroic' defenses made by AT and Artillery units holding out aginst high odds. On this scale they should require additional support as they were not suppose to hold off full ground assaults. Perhaps a defensive penalty of some sort for being alone in the hex could be implemented or if entrenchments are the big differance maker have them entrench like armour?

Keunert -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 1:17:50 PM)
having less infantry would probably be the easiest solution

jjdenver -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 2:44:00 PM)
My quick 2 cents on this is that entrenchment level is a little bit too powerful in the game currently.

aspqrz02 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 2:46:33 PM)
Really, there should be no infantry at all. The strength of the unit is in its guns, not in its personnel ... and, unless the guns don't work without Infantry, leave them out completely ... or, maybe, allow 10% of unit strength as "infantry" to represent a purely nominal self defence capacity. Certainly, as seems to be the case, the majority of the personnel should not be present as "Infantry" ... this is, in fact, double counting. With no (or only 10%) Infantry, this would mean that no sensible Russian player would ever deploy AT units (or any sort of Artillery unit) in a hex by itself, which would represent real life. Note: This subsuming of all gunners into the strength of the guns should apply to all artillery ... including the artillery at Divisional level (making those fourth Regiments in most divisions as vulnerable as they should be, as well ... Divisional Artillery wasn't designed to stand and fight in the front lines as infantry any more than Russian AT units were [X(]) The AI would need to be tweaked to accept these changes, or their ultimate consequences (i.e. that no artillery should be deployed by itself) and, since it should apply to all Infantry, will be a nontrivial effort, I suspect. Phil

Templer_12 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 6:09:01 PM)
Many words have been written here now. Some intelligent, helpful, friendly - some less. Maybe at this point it's about time that the developer even gives a statement to the issue.

abulbulian -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/8/2012 8:34:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keunert let's take a look at the example bwheatly and olivier posted: the defending unit is in suitable terrain (common) the unit has an entrenchment level that needed 3turns/6days of preparation (extraordinary) the attacker has to fight with a terrain penalty (uncommon) the attacker has not full AP the attacker has no air or artillery support (uncommon). two times out of five the unit was able to hold the hex. three times it was dislocated. under such circumstances an attack should only be made if the result is worth the hassle this situation is almost exclusive to the first turn the level of preparation would mean that you have to rail AT units way back and only be able to use them every fourth turn. a more realistic scenario should be tested: defenders fall back to suitable terrain with good autoentrench, a sole AT unit is deployed in a sector with likely Panzer attacks. entrenchment will be a lot lower and the results will favour the attacker more. FYI: there was air support in my situation, 70 JU88s hit the AT unit. Also, to be clear I attacked with the 2 Pz Grenadier Rgts, thus the manpower would be in excess of 10k men. At this point in the war the LAH was at or near full TOE. Most SS units, until later in the war, were maintained at a much high TOE than Wehrmacht units. They also had priority on the better/newer equipment such as tanks, TD, MGs, etc. Here's my final take. - game is not broken by no means, still a wonderful take on an east front campaign. - are there some realism issues that need to be worked out, sure. This happens in almost all war games on this scale after a release. - I don't have an issue with a situation where a smaller unit is able to hold up a large unit in certain circumstances. However, as laid out in my previous post I don't consider this battle one of those circumstances. Given Vic is already looking into this battle engine oddity, I feel confident it will be fixed in a patch soon. keep in mind at no time was I ever second guessing my purchase of DCCB. I consider the contribution of games like this to be quite an amazing accomplishment given his limited resources, unlike some other large software development companies. [&o]

bwheatley -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/9/2012 2:11:39 AM)
Asprqz yea the AT units are battalions (at least thats the size symbol they are using X). But yea no losses on either side points to some weird bug somewhere. :)

aspqrz02 -> RE: Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense (8/9/2012 6:06:42 AM)
In which case there are almost 3x too many trucks, just for a start [X(] Not to mention whether counting the personnel of the unit as infantry and allowing them to simultaneously man the guns (of which there are 5 too many of each, Light and Heavy) is double counting [:-] Fixable, certainly [:)] Phil

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Soviet AT Artillery Brigades (8/9/2012 7:08:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 quote: ORIGINAL: aspqrz ... Now, seriously, ... Seriously, you are taking this way too seriously. [:'(] It's a game with many abstractions including combat results. Military history is replete with examples of outnumbered defenders holding out way longer than anyone expected. But somehow I doubt you would be convinced even if anyone could be bothered to quote them here. You have made up your mind the game is broken because of one combat result you don't think is possible and you are entitled to that opinion. Others disagree. Ultimately it will be up to Vic to decide if his game is working as intended or not. Amen and +1

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Soviet AT Artillery Brigades (8/9/2012 7:20:35 AM)
One thing I really like about the DCCB forum has been the calm, open, friendly and constructive tone adopted by everyone. I certainly hope it continues and that we don't go the way of some other threads on this site (for which I share the blame!)

gollum -> RE: Soviet AT Artillery Brigades (8/9/2012 8:24:02 AM)
I`m maybe wrong (and right now don`t have opportunity to check exact numbers in the game) but I think that the reason for this to happen is not in the infantry component of artillery regiments or (as in this case) in AT-battalions, but in stats of the guns. Every individual of artillery (5 guns) have if I remember correctly 100 hit points - the same amount as one individual of infantry (100 men). The hit points of the defending unit are modified seriously by entrenchment values - I don`t know exactly to what extent but it is not small. This mean that 5 guns are probably as difficult to hit as 100 infantrymen and with good entrenchment values defense value of the defenders is probably much higher than attack of the infantry component of the attackers (and probably even of the tanks) i.e. the probability of hitting something is low for tanks and much lower for attacking infantry (I think that infantry component should have be relatively effective against artillery component (much more than against defending infantry)). The hit points are the defense value. If the unit is in good for defense terrain and have a decent entrenchment it will have a very good defense. On the other hand the infantry component of attacking units is not very good at hitting as it will have relatively weak attack value. The main hitter are probably the tanks in this situation. But if the hit points of defenders are higher than attack values of attackers and with some "luck" it is possible that there will be no hits in the battle. Anyway, I think that hit points values for artillery are probably too high in some situations. Five 37-50 mm AT guns are manned by 30 to 35 or so men. Five 70+ mm field guns are around 40 to 50 men. Five howitzers or corp level cannons - probably no more than 60 to 70 men. And they are with the same base defense value as 100 infantrymen. Of course in reality one hundred infantrymen are probably 10 to 20 relatively independent group targets (for perspective of hitting) and 5 guns are exactly 5 targets. And in direct fighting it is enough to damage the gun (probably killing or wounding only part of his crew) to put it out of the calculation, but for same effect you have to kill, wound or suppress most of the infantrymen. So I think that probably solution is to differentiate hit points for guns and infantry individuals - maybe 100 infantrymen should have at least 2 to 3 times hit points of five guns - at least in direct fighting situations (or probably at least to some extent in air attacks). Of course - as I say - I have relatively little experience with the game (and the base for my assumptions is experience with ATG) and may be wrong.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6894531