Low losses when attacking cities? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

TheFerret -> Low losses when attacking cities? (4/12/2021 7:47:34 PM)

I'm playing Axis against the AI on normal difficulty, now in June 1942. Over the course of the game I've assaulted several cities and found that if I assault with a large (corps or army sized) force that includes fresh divisions with high CPP, I take the city with minimal losses, even when assaulting against what should be a well-prepared defense by a large defending force without an extended siege. For example, I encircled Voronezh and attacked it on the very next turn and took the city, forcing about 20k defenders to surrender, while my attacking force of about 50k suffered a whole 900 casualties. It was the same story taking Odessa, Sevastopol, and other cities with ample defenders. The only time I've had high casualties taking a city was in my first learning game where I tried taking Odessa with an insufficient force of exhausted Romanians.

I'm curious if maybe the rule that gives a force with overwhelming numbers a combat advantage is too generous in city terrain or against fortifications, or something like that? Has anyone else had this experience?



loki100 -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/12/2021 8:39:06 PM)

think there are a few parts to this. In 1941 (& the reverse in 1944-45) can see high morale/exp units up against low morale/low exp units, now if you manage the CPP/fatigue side with some care that tends to favour one side over the other.

add on, battle losses/turn losses can be a bit misleading. The immediate combat shows killed purely as an artifact of destroyed elements, so take the above into account and it can appear to be low. The end turn routines then picks over damaged elements and a portion come back, some go to the wounded pile and some to the dead pile. So if you won with low destroyed but relatively high damaged numbers of elements the losses are under-stated in the immediate combat reports.

Final bit, this relating kills to destroyed elements can make some individual battles look unrealistic. It can happen, again esp in the typical 1941 circumstances.

its a long running problem, as long as the game models most manpower as a unitary element rather than as individuals, outright losses in particular may jump around quite a lot. As such the game's natural currency is the element, not individual men but the loss tables are presented as men.



Speedysteve -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/12/2021 9:04:48 PM)

On a related theme I've been very impressed with the flow/feel of casualties in battles based on experience, better leaders influencing when to retreat (and hence reduce casualties), seeing KV's and T-34's exacting a toll on German armour when they get engaged at times, losses by retreat etc etc [:)]



stryc -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/13/2021 8:46:41 AM)

Did those assaults include Panzers?
('Cities' aren't the armour deathtraps in this game that they arguably should be.)



TheFerret -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/13/2021 8:58:55 AM)

Yes, a couple of the assaults included tanks, with very light tank losses shown in the battle report.

Thank you for clarifying, loki! I do wish damaged elements were shown in the "summary" combat report - I know they're accessible in the more detailed view, but it would be nice to see them more prominently get a general sense of which battles are particularly costly for learning purposes.



stryc -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/13/2021 10:02:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFerret
Yes, a couple of the assaults included tanks, with very light tank losses shown in the battle report.

Essentially, 'Cities' are of little consequence to armour. Which I happen to think is a bit daft and makes these regional hot-spots far too easy to roll over.

See this thread: Dense & Double Dense Locations

It's only when you encounter 'Urban' hexes does the 'Double-Dense' terrain modifier kick in and punish armour. And, weirdly, there is no 'Dense' built up area in the game; it all goes from 'nothing' straight to 'Double-Dense'.



TheFerret -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/14/2021 8:00:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFerret
Yes, a couple of the assaults included tanks, with very light tank losses shown in the battle report.

Essentially, 'Cities' are of little consequence to armour. Which I happen to think is a bit daft and makes these regional hot-spots far too easy to roll over.

See this thread: Dense & Double Dense Locations

It's only when you encounter 'Urban' hexes does the 'Double-Dense' terrain modifier kick in and punish armour. And, weirdly, there is no 'Dense' built up area in the game; it all goes from 'nothing' straight to 'Double-Dense'.


My attack on Voronezh, which is urban terrain, was mostly armored divisions. I suffered 0 tanks destroyed and 10 tanks damaged. The ground combat summary shows that the tanks were involved in combat - the 38 Pz IVf did particularly well, scoring 137 hits while only suffering 4 tanks damaged.

[img]https://i.ibb.co/gSYHsT9/Voronezh-attack.png[/img]

(Other attackers were one motorized division and one infantry division.)



Karri -> RE: Low losses when attacking cities? (4/14/2021 2:32:00 PM)

Attacks with overwhelming force will always result in lopsided casualties. Failed attacks on cities can wipe out attacking units.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.265625