Urban terrain combat balance (Full Version)

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



Message

Beethoven1 -> Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 2:09:14 PM)

I think that urban combat should get a look in the next balance update. Here's a sample battle from my StB game. Some commentary after the screenshots:

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/908135521279180823/928672209243877466/unknown.png[/image]

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/908135521279180823/928672335681163295/unknown.png[/image]

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/908135521279180823/928672475825471518/unknown.png[/image]

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/908135521279180823/928672618364665926/unknown.png[/image]

To add to the point, here is another attack I did the previous turn taking Rostov. I attacked across the river with less than half of the supposed nominal CV of the defenders. And yes, granted the defenders were Romanians in this case, but it was still across a major river in a level 3 fort, with the defender having double my (alleged) combat value:

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/881243030416425031/929025261024989234/unknown.png[/image]

And if the issue were just that the defenders were Romanians, then presumably I could easily achieve similar results attacking the Romanians which were defending swamps (along with the Arab special purposes battalion):

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/881243030416425031/929027680819609690/unknown.png[/image]

But my attack on the swamp failed. The Romanians in the swamp are actually much more difficult to attack, despite having only a quarter of the defensive CV of the Romanians in the urban terrain of Rostov. I also followed that up with a second attack, which also failed with similar CV odds. Whereas if I had been following up a failed attack in urban terrain, the second attack may well have succeeded because the defenders would have been more disrupted and run lower on ammo from the first attack.


I know that CV (in particular defensive CV) can be deceptive, but it seems especially so in urban terrain, to the point that urban terrain seems almost indefensible.

What seems to occur in urban terrain is that the battles are such high intensity, that the attacker can simply win regardless of CV odds by attacking either with a larger number of men, or alternatively by repeatedly attacking, even with low CV units. If you attack with a couple of weak units first, then the defender will use up all their ammo in the first attack, and then a second attack will succeed simply because the defender is out of ammo. In either case, combat in urban terrain is at such a high intensity that the defending units will run out of ammunition and/or have all their elements disrupted/damaged. The result of this is that it is very common that a defender in an urban battle will not merely retreat, but rout or even be shattered, even if they are in level 3 forts as well as the urban terrain.

There is some logic to trying to have something different in urban combat, to try to simulate Stalingrad-style street fighting, but the way it seems to be working in practice very often seems to produce strange results like this, which doesn't really feel like Stalingrad-style street fighting.

As a result of this, it is very common to win battles in urban terrain with less than 2:1 final CV, and even with CV in favor of the enemy (due their elements being depleted). But this only really happens in urban terrain, only rarely will you see that sort of result in another sort of terrain.

City terrain (and also, I think heavy urban terrain???) does not have the same issues, and as far as I know the reason for that is that combat intensity in city terrain is lower.

Are other players seeing similar things in other games? In my games, it is to the point where it seems to me like think the defender would very often be better off if the terrain were "city" rather than "urban," and in some cases it might even plausibly be smarter tactics to defend terrain nearby an urban hex but maybe even leave the urban hex itself undefended. At least if you are defending a level 3 fort in clear terrain, you won't generally rout or become depleted after losing a battle. But you seem to much more easily rout and/or become depleted after losing a battle in urban terrain, due to the high combat intensity.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 2:20:41 PM)

In the cases you posted above, CV aside, the attacker had overwhelming numbers and advantage in both men and artillery. Since the CV system is affected by the combat system, it makes sense that the defender's CV was significantly reduced (after being bumped up quite a bit initially because of the Urban terrain). Do you think that in each of these cases historically the defenders would have held?



loki100 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 2:28:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

...
Are other players seeing similar things in other games? In my games, it is to the point where it seems to me like think the defender would very often be better off if the terrain were "city" rather than "urban," and in some cases it might even plausibly be smarter tactics to defend terrain nearby an urban hex but maybe even leave the urban hex itself undefended. At least if you are defending a level 3 fort in clear terrain, you won't generally rout or become depleted after losing a battle. But you seem to much more easily rout and/or become depleted after losing a battle in urban terrain, due to the high combat intensity.


yes, seeing the same in my game with Steven I've lost Orel and Stalino to these attacks. I understand the logic, basically so much damage is done to my defending elements (mainly disrupted) that at the end of the battle they are unready and then rout.

but I agree on this, its an artifact of the terrain. In any other hex I'd have held simply as most of the fighting wouldn't have been close quarters, which is making me downgrade urban hexes as parts of my defensive line.

on the other hand, to get this effect does demand a huge effort by the Soviets so have no idea what can be done. Clearly a city doesn't have a clearly defined border onto open fields, so its unreasonable to treat an attack as if its coming from open terrain but the quick transition to close range does have a very direct impact



Beethoven1 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 2:50:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In the cases you posted above, CV aside, the attacker had overwhelming numbers and advantage in both men and artillery. Since the CV system is affected by the combat system, it makes sense that the defender's CV was significantly reduced (after being bumped up quite a bit initially because of the Urban terrain). Do you think that in each of these cases historically the defenders would have held?


I do agree that it makes logical sense for numerical superiority to have an effect on combat. My issue is not with that, and not even necessarily with the attack succeeding. But what seems strange is that you see the way it succeeds is often strongly discordant with combat in other sorts of good defensive terrain, in particular city/rough/heavy forest/swamp.

The fact that Soviets had numerical superiority in the attack is not unusual. In the attacks I do as Soviets in the StB scenario, I basically always have numerical superiority of at least 5x, and more usually up to 10x (I also aim for the same thing with Soviet counterattacks in my 1941 Grand Campaign, but that is more difficult to achieve). What would be unusual would be for me to do an attack where I didn't have significant numerical superiority, because I will basically always gather my troops and attack with a lot of troops against one particular hex.

My attacks on Rostov and Orel both had ~5 to 1 numerical superiority in terms of men and the same or higher numerical superiority in terms of guns.


By contrast, here are some attacks I had been doing against different sorts of terrain (heavy forest, swamp, and/or light forest) in the Leningrad area.

Here I attacked a light forest hex with 6 to 1 numerical superiority and nearly 10 to 1 superiority in guns. I also had double the combat value of the defender. I was also attacking with high quality units (mostly Guards Rifle Corps filled with rifle brigade support units, with the occasional non-Guards rifle corps thrown in), whereas the units I used to attack Rostov and Orel were lower quality non-Guards units. The attack was also preceded by separate battles where I attacked only with pure artillery units. Despite this, the attack only barely succeeded:

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/881243030416425031/929037229932810270/unknown.png[/image]

The previous turn, I had also similarly attacked that same hex (also similarly preceded by attacks by pure artillery divisions).

Here is the first attack other than the pure artillery attacks, lowering the fort from level 3 to 2:

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/881243030416425031/929037887750692885/unknown.png[/image]

And here is the second attack, which lowered the fort from level 2 to 1:

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/881243030416425031/929038196891852841/unknown.png[/image]

The thing that seems to be different about these battles is just the combat intensity (and I suppose, reading Loki's comment, the range). A lot fewer elements get disrupted and combat intensity seems to be much lower, and the defender doesn't run out of ammo so while I may win or lose the battle, the defender is not generally going to rout or be depleted at the end of the battle, and I don't win the battle (at least most of the time) while having less than 2:1 CV in my favor.

The battles are similar in that the defender is defending in good defensive terrain and generally with forts, and that I am attacking with a lot of men and 5 to 1 or more numerical superiority. But the results are very different if the terrain is urban than if it is any of these other kinds of good defensive terrain.



Beethoven1 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 2:57:02 PM)

Here's another random battle:

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/881243030416425031/929040427141697666/unknown.png[/image]

I am posting this just to illustrate the point that basically every attack I do is going to be an attack with large scale numerical superiority. I could select any of my attacks randomly, and it would be rare to find ones with less than 5 to 1 numerical superiority for the Soviets. If I were attacking with less than that, it would be some sort of special circumstance such as attacking a Romanian unit, or attacking a unit for a 2nd time that has already retreated.



Beethoven1 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 3:01:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

on the other hand, to get this effect does demand a huge effort by the Soviets so have no idea what can be done. Clearly a city doesn't have a clearly defined border onto open fields, so its unreasonable to treat an attack as if its coming from open terrain but the quick transition to close range does have a very direct impact


One funny thing there is that you use the word "city."

Well, what if in your game where you lost Orel and Stalino to these sorts of attacks, or alternatively in my game where I took Rostov and Orel with these sorts of attacks, what if Orel/Stalino/Rostov were city terrain instead of urban terrain?

In that case, I think the battle results would have looked fairly different. Maybe the cities would still have been taken, maybe not. But I think if I am playing Soviets right now in 1943, I would actually rather attack German units that are defending urban terrain than German units that are defending "city" terrain. And that is counterintuitive and strange - urban terrain is supposed to be more defensible than city terrain, not the other way around. And if I were playing Germany, I think I would probably feel better about my chances of holding on to a "city" like Kaluga than an "urban" area like Orel.



Stamb -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 3:03:26 PM)

I have to agree with Beethoven1, thanks for showing such an issue.



Speedysteve -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 3:03:46 PM)

I tend to agree too based on my game with Loki. If the combat result was similar (in terms of scale/effect) in other terrain types I wouldn't mind but I can attack with the same force ratio against a Light Woods hex and if I'm lucky reduce a fort level....same massive force level vs an Urban hex can lead to the Wurst lovers heading west....



Speedysteve -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 3:04:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

on the other hand, to get this effect does demand a huge effort by the Soviets so have no idea what can be done. Clearly a city doesn't have a clearly defined border onto open fields, so its unreasonable to treat an attack as if its coming from open terrain but the quick transition to close range does have a very direct impact


One funny thing there is that you use the word "city."

Well, what if in your game where you lost Orel and Stalino to these sorts of attacks, or alternatively in my game where I took Rostov and Orel with these sorts of attacks, what if Orel/Stalino/Rostov were city terrain instead of urban terrain?

In that case, I think the battle results would have looked fairly different. Maybe the cities would still have been taken, maybe not. But I think if I am playing Soviets right now in 1943, I would actually rather attack German units that are defending urban terrain than German units that are defending "city" terrain. And that is counterintuitive and strange - urban terrain is supposed to be more defensible than city terrain, not the other way around. And if I were playing Germany, I think I would probably feel better about my chances of holding on to a "city" like Kaluga than an "urban" area like Orel.


Agreed



Speedysteve -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 3:06:58 PM)

I can easily show 5-10 x 1943 Soviet attacks every week against non-Urban terrain.....when forts are involved against either 2-3 German Divisions or against Swamp/Heavy Woods = 1000-10000 Soviet Casualties vs 100-1000 Axis and a reduction in fort if the right odds/Engineers are involved.....[:)] If you want to see the loss ratio's look at our AAR[;)]



jubjub -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 4:59:03 PM)

urban hexes are currently pretty much not defensible as the Germans. They don't have enough rifle/combat squads to withstand the high intensity urban combat. There should be checks throughout the combat to allow some of the support squads to pick up rifles and convert to combat squads.



Joel Billings -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 6:02:12 PM)

This is WAD. The assumption is that the combat is going to be more intense. It uses a different system to generate this intensity. It's not perfect, but we feel it needs to be considerably different than combat over another hex with less significance. We created city forts to allow the defender to stuff a city with a large enough force to make it possible to hold out, even when attacked by a very large force. It's very rare that you would see a very dense force in a normal hex that you might see in urban fighting or a siege situation. If you want to hold a city against a massive attacking force, you have to have a very large garrison. I discount the Romanian example because these are very poor troops. I can't say exactly why the other non-city attack on Romanians failed, but it could be an unusual situation or fatigued attackers, but it's a much smaller force attacking with 2.5 to 1 odds instead of 5.5 to one odds.



Stamb -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/7/2022 8:38:31 PM)

What is happening in heavy urban, same situation?

Axis can not create forts in the Soviet territory, and looks like there will be no changes, despite a request in some other topic.

As a result there can be only 3 divisions that will be routed or in case of a hold - left with pretty low toe so on the next attack/turn they will route/shatter?

TLDR - do not defend urban and it is better to have divisions in a clear terrain with lvl 3 fortification as they will fight better and retreat with much more less losses? Makes no sense to me if previous assumption (question) is correct.



EddyBear81 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/8/2022 7:07:45 AM)

Hi,

Exactly the same problem here. Against the AI (!) I couldn't hold my ground in D and Z-towns against multiple attacks in a single turn. Sure, the Soviet AI paid dearly, but so did the Axis. And I set up a strong defence : 3 (almost) full infantry each with 2 pioneer and a light flak SU. All in a strong Corps with 4-6 artillery SUs.

And both towns fell in a single turn.

In fact, I could understand that urban combat is a nightmare, that against several turns of bloody assaults, the defenders could rout. It is even a hint to crack tough (surrounded) nuts such as Moscow (ie. don't give up after the first "holds").
But when all that happens IN A SINGLE TURN, there is nothing I can do, even if I am determined to rotate divisions and engage in a sustained blood bath.



Hardradi -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/8/2022 8:14:38 AM)

Here is a battle when the shoe is on the other foot. Axis attacking Soviets in Urban.

I thought HMGs ruled the streets, essential for cutting off buildings and blocks of buildings before they are assaulted.

This is a paltry performance by the MG34 and also the German Squads when compared to their Soviet kin. Axis has great leadership against a foe that was cut off for about 4 turns (but rec'd air supply). The light mud might be a hindrance to an attacker but the rain would be to their advantage.

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/919044747715289150/929299193451937832/unknown.png[/image]



Hardradi -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/8/2022 8:20:59 AM)

And another one. Same deal. Soviet Rifle Squads and Maxims MGs rule the streets.

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/919044747715289150/929302900948238336/unknown.png[/image]



Stamb -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/8/2022 9:30:23 AM)

This is because its much harder to attack than defend. Check first image of a post. Opposite situation.



Speedysteve -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/8/2022 10:22:49 AM)

If the Urban combat routine is WAD then IMO the combat routines for Clear and Light Woods need to be heavily modified since at present it's far harder to dislodge defenders from a level 3 fort Clear terrain than it is in level 3 fort Urban terrain....just my 2p



xhoel -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/9/2022 1:07:55 AM)

Something being WAD doesnt mean that it is right. The reality is that urban combat was/is absolutely dreaded by any attacking force because of how difficult and costly it is. The fact that the game not only doesnt reflect this but takes it in a completely different direction where an attacker has an easier time taking a heavy urban hex instead of a clear hex is just plain wrong.

Given the examples shown and the arguments raised by many posters, it would warrant at least another look into the combat system. Giving the player the incentive "Dont defend urban/ heavy urban hexes because you cant hold them unless you build a city fort and stack 4+ divisions there" does not sit right with me at all.



cameron88 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/9/2022 1:45:28 AM)

Urban combat is probably the second worst part of the game in regards to land combat, with the first being unrealistic retreat losses for Germany.

The problem with this game is it's far to binary, It would be far more realistic especially in regards to urban combat if the simulation was split up much more then the average battle, so all elements and support units dont fight at the same time but split up.




ShaggyHiK -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 2:49:50 AM)

In order to get more than 3 divisions in the city hex, the German player does not need to have a fort in the city, you need to put a commander with high initiative and some kind of divisions in the rear of the city with the status of a reserve.
With a high degree of probability, the division will join the battle and will give the desired advantage.


Globally, I still see too many disadvantages in the fact that German players would build city forts on Soviet territory. This mechanic can have serious flaws with far-reaching consequences. I am definitely against the German fortresses on Soviet territory at 41-42 and even at 43.
I returned to this thesis because in the course of the discussion, arguments were made in favor of forts, without taking into account the disadvantages of such a system.


If we talk about urban battles in general, as a rule, much greater losses are incurred in the city than in open areas, because the battles themselves take place at short distances when the fighters can see the enemy at a very close distance from themselves, less than 200-300 meters. This actually increases the losses on both sides, but this does not mean that the city cannot be taken quickly enough. I think in this respect the situation around Konigsberg can be considered.
A large and fortified city was taken in a very short period of time by game standards.
And here you must immediately understand that this is a large and fortified city.
While the Soviet "cities" did not have such a powerful architecture.



Stamb -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 7:56:06 AM)

You know that reserve activation can trigger if any unit is under attack? So Soviets can attack any hexes near the urban to trigger reserve and then take an urban hex without a problems.



loki100 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 8:15:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88

Urban combat is probably the second worst part of the game in regards to land combat, with the first being unrealistic retreat losses for Germany.

...


? - so we go back to the WiTE1 (post .08) fantasy where its impossible for the Germans to suffer any tank losses?



ShaggyHiK -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 8:32:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88

Urban combat is probably the second worst part of the game in regards to land combat, with the first being unrealistic retreat losses for Germany.

...


? - so we go back to the WiTE1 (post .08) fantasy where its impossible for the Germans to suffer any tank losses?



We go even further, losses as such.

Goebbels' propaganda was so good that even now there are people who truly believe that the Russian hordes of Mongolo-Tatars arrived in Berlin riding on a wave of corpses.



Jango32 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 8:42:03 AM)

quote:

You know that reserve activation can trigger if any unit is under attack? So Soviets can attack any hexes near the urban to trigger reserve and then take an urban hex without a problems.

Reserve activation also does not trigger if the division put on reserve mode is hugged by an enemy unit.



loki100 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 8:50:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

You know that reserve activation can trigger if any unit is under attack? So Soviets can attack any hexes near the urban to trigger reserve and then take an urban hex without a problems.


really not the case ... they need to pass the various leadership tests, and to get a Rifle Corps to reserve react is fairly rare. Its not about reserve reactions, a well structure 2 hex assault should already have 6 Rifle Corps and lots of well chosen SU attachments



Jango32 -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 8:52:32 AM)

Stamb meant activating screening German reserves before attacking the German held urban hex, so they run out of MPs to activate for the urban hex assault.



Stamb -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 9:17:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Stamb meant activating screening German reserves before attacking the German held urban hex, so they run out of MPs to activate for the urban hex assault.

Yep. I was talking about Axis divisions in reserve.

You can't select which hexes or divisions you want to support with them. So Soviet can get rid of a all reserves prior to main attack on an urban hex.



ShaggyHiK -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 10:30:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

You know that reserve activation can trigger if any unit is under attack? So Soviets can attack any hexes near the urban to trigger reserve and then take an urban hex without a problems.

If the Soviet player has so many troops that in 42 he is able to carry out attacks to exclude reserves near the city and while taking this city. Then you are clearly doing something wrong.

If it happens in 43 or even more so in 44. Then welcome to the eastern front These are his realities.



Stamb -> RE: Urban terrain combat balance (1/10/2022 10:32:57 AM)

Even Soviet AI can attack each hex vs player, imagine what retreating Soviet player can do.

Its not about getting a victory in each of this hexes. Just to activate reserves before a main attack.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.828125