Unit size attack penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

xhoel -> Unit size attack penalty (11/11/2018 6:03:40 PM)

Hey everyone,
I was wondering if anyone knew if there is a unit size attack penalty, eg: does it make a difference whether there are 10 divisions or just 2 attacking? I seem to recall that there was a certain penalty involved but can't find it right now.

Cheers,
Xhoel



SparkleyTits -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/11/2018 6:24:52 PM)

There are manpower differencials in attacks that modify the CV from what I can tell yes

I imagine someone who has a keener eye to detail than me than give you the exact numbers but from what I can tell it starts at somewhere around 3 times the men and the modifier increases more bodies you throw into the attack
I don't know if there is a limit where the CV modifier will stop

This is one of the reasons regiments are not as strong as their CV would show as if in an attack or defence against 1 division they will be at disadvantage in manpower so their CV is easy to modify with manpower differencials in a battle

So if you have a critical battle and have the units to spare in the attack and want a definite win then throw in as many bodies as you are able and you will notice you CV modifier will go in your favour



Otis1903 -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/11/2018 7:34:44 PM)

1.11.02 patch: Reworked “too many attackers” penalty. It will now penalize defenders that have less than 4000 men per adjacent hex occupied by enemy units, and it will penalize attackers that have more than 60000 men per hex from which they are attacking. This will not apply to partisan combat and artillery attacks. For hasty attacks the number of attacking men used in calculations will be halved.

I don't know what the penalty is.



Chris21wen -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/12/2018 8:26:55 AM)

From the upgdate manual. The exact effects are not known being hidden under the hood.

15.6.1.1. Large Attacking Forces
There’s a fire penalty in combat when there is a large number of attacking units. This penalty will never be applied in battles against partisans nor during hasty attacks when the number of attacking men used in calculations is halved.

It applies evenly to all elements and impacts elements firing, the closer the elements are to each other the more they are impacted. Artillery elements are much less effected by this rule. The chance that elements will not fire increases as the force value increases.

There are two multipliers, one for the attacker which begins when there’s more than 60000 men per hex from which they are attacking, and one for the defender that has less than 4000 men per adjacent hex occupied by attacking enemy units. These multipliers are affected by the strength of enemy fortifications and terrain. So it's possible to attack strong positions with more troops than the enemy in the open, and not suffer from the penalty.

These two multipliers work together to represent a few things.
• First, the diminishing returns when using overwhelming forces to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by using much less forces.
• Second, the bloodier nature of combat in defensible terrain and/or fortifications.
• Third, the higher effectiveness of smaller forces that are of better quality, which will be able to deal more damage when defending, and retain most (or all) of their strength when attacking.
• These multipliers will allow attacks using hordes of poor quality troops and they will be able to deal some significant damage too, albeit suffering increased losses.

Ammo restrictions apply as normal so elements won't be able to fire if they exhaust unit's ammo. However, usually only a fraction of elements gets to fire due to other multipliers that are applied, thus there are natural limits to how many elements will fire, even if the defender's multiplier will be large.



xhoel -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/12/2018 6:19:04 PM)

Thanks for the reply guys. Too bad there is no info to what exactly the penalty is but it's quite helpful to know this.
Seeing how the rule was changed in 1.11.02 does this mean that attacking from a hex with less than 60k men will not induce a penalty?



Chris21wen -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/12/2018 10:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Seeing how the rule was changed in 1.11.02 does this mean that attacking from a hex with less than 60k men will not induce a penalty?



yes



xhoel -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/13/2018 1:17:16 PM)

Thanks Chris!



GamesaurusRex -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/14/2018 3:02:48 AM)

[:D] [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=sign0003.gif][sm=00000116.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=crazy.gif][sm=sign0003.gif][sm=crazy.gif][sm=crazy.gif][sm=crazy.gif]

This arbitrary 60,000 man penalty trigger rule is patently absurd. God and victory is almost always on the side with the heaviest battalions.

One could possibly argue that a combat effectiveness multiplier could reasonably be applied based upon some calculated ratio between a General's administrative rating and the number of men he has to command, but that would take a major statistical study of historical battles on a massive scale to make any sense. To say, as it is in this rule, that "Bigger" is worse than "Smaller"... "Just because it's too many" (especially at some arbitrary number of men) IS JUST NONSENSE.



MarauderPL -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/14/2018 7:39:50 AM)

Xerxes likes this.



56ajax -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/14/2018 9:33:57 AM)

and Napoleon



Chris21wen -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/14/2018 1:36:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

[:D] [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=sign0003.gif][sm=00000116.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=crazy.gif][sm=sign0003.gif][sm=crazy.gif][sm=crazy.gif][sm=crazy.gif]

This arbitrary 60,000 man penalty trigger rule is patently absurd. God and victory is almost always on the side with the heaviest battalions.

One could possibly argue that a combat effectiveness multiplier could reasonably be applied based upon some calculated ratio between a General's administrative rating and the number of men he has to command, but that would take a major statistical study of historical battles on a massive scale to make any sense. To say, as it is in this rule, that "Bigger" is worse than "Smaller"... "Just because it's too many" (especially at some arbitrary number of men) IS JUST NONSENSE.


Lets put some maths to this. Each hex in the game is 10 miles so in yds this would be 12600yds now assuming a man requires 1 yd of space to operate a rifle that equals 12600 men. Now if you start to throw in weapons larger than a rifle the number of men that can occupy the direct firing line falls. Now at 60000 men that would mean approx 5 direct firing lines, each being high then the one in front. This is patently ridiculus in modern war, this is not the Napoleonic era in any case that's for the attacker so impossible.

So what do we have instead, an immediate reserve committed after the initial attack but who play no role in that attack other than to follow behind taking advantage of any break through or reinforcing as needed. This reserve is normally 1/2 the size (2 Bn up, 1 behind). You then have indirct fire units behind the direct fire line that are heavy on support and do not fire. Taking all this into account why is it nonsense to impose some figure?

I will agree that 60,000 men is an arbitrary figure but you need something but not the concept.



GamesaurusRex -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/17/2018 12:19:22 AM)

"Let's put some maths to this..." [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=crazy.gif]

So, Chris... this theoretical front of yours is 10 miles wide and 5 yards deep ???? [:D]

If you want to talk numbers... a Russian '42 Rifle Division was approximately 12,000 men. A Russian '42 Rifle Corps ranged from 12,000 to 24,000 men and by mid '44 rose to 20,000 to 30,000 men. With these numbers in mind and looking at the stacking limits of this game, one can easily see that the 60,000 man limit was probably arrived at by estimating 3 Rifle Corps to be about 60,000 men. Ergo they penalize anything over the stacking limit.

THIS IS ABSURDLY ARBITRARY, especially considering examples from operational commentaries like Koniev's in his memoirs regarding the Jassy–Kishinev Operation, August 1944.


" Operations of 3rd Ukrainian Front (GOC General Tolbuchin)

Main effort of the front is in the sector of the 37th Army (GOC Lieutenant General Scharochin). Main effort of 37th Army is 66th Rifle Corps and 6th Guards Rifle Corps. The 37th Army has a 4km wide breakthrough frontage assigned to it. It is divided in two groupings, two corps up, one corps reserve. According to plan, it is supposed to break through the depth of the German/Romanian defense in 7 days, to a distance of 110-120km, with the distance to be covered in the first four days 15km each.

66th Rifle Corps (GOC Major General Kuprijanow) consisting of two groupings (61st Guards RD, 333rd RD up, 244th RD reserve). Attached are 46th Gun Artillery Brigade, 152nd Howitzer Artillery Regiment, 184th and 1245th Tank Destroyer Regiment, 10th Mortar Regiment, 26th Light Artillery Brigade, 87th Recoilless Mortar Regiment, 92nd and 52nd Tank Regiment, 398th Assault Gun Regiment, two Pioneer Assault Battalions, and two Light Flamethrower Companies.

Corps frontage 4km wide
Corps breakthrough frontage 3.5km (61st RD 1.5km, 333rd RD 2km) "

THERE YOU HAVE 3 CORPS WITH FULL SUPPORT ON A 4 KILOMETER FRONT !
If my math is right, that's about 6 times more concentrated than 60,000 men on a 10 mile front.
I hardly think that more than 60,000 per hex presents any operational problem.



SparkleyTits -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/17/2018 12:34:13 AM)

We need to remember this is a game and because of that mechanics have to be put into it to enhance the enjoyment of the game even though it means in some case there is less historical accuracy it's simply not escapable without harming the overall enjoyment of the game

So the 60k per hex rule could of been put in for a reason to increase enjoyment/balance or for reasons like making urban fort cities in the later war hardier to assault and other reasons like that etc and not for reasons of historical accuracy

I doubt devs would make up rules to be absurb or arbritrary as that would be a rather wasted and pointless endeavour for the monumental amount of time this game takes up of their precious time
I imagine all rules had/have very specific reasons for being there even if some may become flawed over time as the game changes



GamesaurusRex -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/17/2018 12:44:16 AM)

Sparky makes a valid point. This rule may have been put in to counteract some other imbalance that they saw from the viewpoint of playability.
I'm just saying that it is an arbitrary limit that has little to do with real operational limits of the time.



SparkleyTits -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/17/2018 12:48:42 AM)

Yeah it's part of the deal of reenacting our fantasies digitally!

Unfortunately we cannot get an exact representation but if I got the chance to test out a world war myself for real I am sure I would be much more upset than having a few rules that seem silly sometimes [:D]



Texas D -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/17/2018 2:19:51 AM)

Don't forget that not everyone in a division is a combat soldier [:)]



Kielec -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/19/2018 10:54:57 PM)

I'd like to go back to the part when GamesaurusRex said

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

"Let's put some maths to this..." etc.



And I am not going to go at their maths. I am going to try to nibble at the general logic, though...
The claimed fact, that some Soviet commanders allegedly (I am truly sorry for this defensive pseudo legalese, but GR does not provide for references, so I apply my standard pinch of salt) planned an operation, or another that would have two Rifle Corps attacking on a frontage of 1,5km and being pushed ahead by a third Rifle Corps, does not mean this was a good idea...
Hoping you get my drift, I will not continue...
And something tells me that putting a hex-to-hex limit on a number of human bodies that can be effectively used in a WW2 Eastern Front-style assault is a good idea. 60k? Perhaps. But whatever the actual threshold - diminishing returns should be the name of the game once you cross it.



GamesaurusRex -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/20/2018 2:28:59 PM)

Kielec, I think you misread my post. I didn't say that... I quoted what Chris21wen said.

What I implied was that his math was very much off because there is plenty of room in a space 10 miles across to accommodate more than 60,000 men with ease. I also offered a small piece of historical commentary which a Russian general wrote regarding an operation carried out in August of 1944 that had a troop density somewhere on the order of six times greater than the 60,000 man limit imposed in this game. Considering the fact that that operation resulted in a Russian victory that obliterated the combined German and Romanian forces defending Moldavia and did so at a relatively low casualty rate compared to that lost by the German/Romanian forces, I highly doubt that this 60,000 man penalty is anything other than an arbitrary rule that in no way reflects reality.

As for references, you can start here >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassy%E2%80%93Kishinev_Offensive

and here >>> https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Jassy%E2%80%93Kishinev_Offensive.html



Kielec -> RE: Unit size attack penalty (11/20/2018 7:27:21 PM)

Apologies for the minor mix-up with quotation from Chris21wen.

The rest stands, and for clarity's sake I shall repeat:

The fact that the Soviets pulled off an operation in which troop density was bordering on absurd (as your wiki claims 6 to 7 and more infantry battalions per 1km of frontage, so settling on 600 men per battalion we have 3-4 men per 1 meter of frontage!!!) does not mean this was a good idea. I repeat: the fact that they did that, does not make it a good decision. Before you object, as you do in your post above, that it did work out etc. let me insist, that the fact that it worked out does not make it a good idea either. Scharochin and Kuprijanov got good rolls, so what? Piling up people like that was a criminal mistake even then, and the fact it worked does not change its criminality!

In my opinion there should be (increasing) penalties for engaging a single target with more troops than XXX. I do not have a position on what the XXX should be, just that it should be there and that the penalties should be severe and growing with the scale of abuse.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6425781