seille
Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007 From: Germany Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: george1972 I wanted to take these last two attacks on my troops to utter some criticism on AT's combat engine. Don't get me wrong: I really like the game and it incorporates a lot of features not seen in other games and does these very well, but I personally found this the most obvious example of a deficiency in the combat resolution system. My forward units were attacked from 3 sides by an enemy inferior in numbers, troop experience, staff experience and mobility. The formulas clearly show what went wrong: the attacker got a 75% combat bonus due to concentric attacks and my forces got penalized for over-stacking. The result was a disastrous defeat. But this result clearly goes against my "gut feeling". My troops outnumbered the attackers 3:1 in tanks and 2:1 in infantry. I had 1 motorized and 2 horse-drawn units, the attackers one mechanized and 2 on foot. Looking at historical evidence, my units should have been able to score a decisive defense success by employing a proper mobile defense in both cases shown in the screenshot. The defending force was sufficiently strong and mobile to do that. However, the combat routines don't seem to take those factors into account. Overall I think the concentric bonuses are too high. They assume the attackers always manage to fully exploit their position. This however is not a done deal, history is rife with accounts of where coordinated attacks failed to materialize as planned due to poor communications, bad staff work or defensive enemy action (most notably, defensive artillery fire breaking up massed infantry attacks). I think staff experience/influence as well as relative mobility should be taken into account when determining the concentric combat modifier, and perhaps a big part of it should be randomized to reflect one sides good or bad luck in coordinating the attack and/or defense. The stacking limit is another point that seems to be too arbitrary. It is true that when attacked from a single direction, the defender should not be able to bring his full force to bear on the enemy due to spatial constraints. However, when attacked from multiple directions, an over-stacked hex should be able to deal with those more easily. Since the hex contains more troops, it should be more capable of fighting on multiple fronts (hex-sides) simultaneously, negating the attackers concentric bonus to some degree. Please note that I'm only talking about the simulation capabilities of AT. Seille beat my forces using the rules of the games and I was stupid to not pay more attention to them, so I'm the only one to blame for that. My little talk is more geared toward improving an already great wargame engine further. I can understand this too good, George. XboronX did the same to me and my beloved Leningrad defense in a game long time ago. I overstacked the hex and thought: he can never drive back all the infantry and tanks/guns. But he did ! I thought this must eb a bug , but it´s a feature. Vic simply wanted to keep the game fluid, no hexes which are not to take for the attacker for a long time due to a iron defense (in other words putting the hex full of troops). So the overstacking rule is VERY ok with me. If the value is that good (100) is an other question. It is adjustable in the editor...and if you fear a attack you can optimize the stack by removing ineffective troops which just eat up the stack points and don´t defend well. So i would keep some mortars/machineguns and remove some infantry (just as a example) As i said it´s all editable, the stack limit and if i remember right also any penalties. Concentric bonus is high yes, but i don´t think too high. Maybe a increase in stack limit to 125 or 150 would solve the problem. Overall i agree the success of this attack was "too much" looking at with neutral eyes.
|