Soviet Wave Attacks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Soviet Wave Attacks

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Soviet Wave Attacks

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 12:12:26 AM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

Is this a pretty standard tactic?

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 12:56:56 AM

gingerbread

Posts: 2994
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Sort of.

Some GHC recommend using multiple low/bad odds attacks to take the Neva back door hex. It uses up reserve units MPs.

Here, I would guess it's to be able to use the same air groups in more than one strike. I'm somewhat surprised that there aren't more guns from Art Div's used in the final attack.

Exploit wise, I'd say on par with the Neva one or any attack made solely for the purpose of using up reserve units MP.

Difficult to hinder in code, so HR solution most expedient.

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 2

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 2:25:14 AM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

Very cheesy in my opinion and that says a lot. Does this also increases fatigue of German units so that the likelihood for the final attack being successful is higher? Fatigue seems to be a major aspect in regards to combat.

(in reply to gingerbread)

Post #: 3

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 7:24:09 AM

Toidi

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline

It used to be a very standard tactics both for Soviets and Germans. It used to be very effective not only because of reserve activation, but because each of those attacks used a huge chunk of defenders ammo, which in turn led to very inefficient fighting in the end. Now, after some pathing, this tactics is barely effective. The reserves will not activate at odds like that (the odds need to be within much closer range than attack shown for the reserves to activate), so it has no influence on reserve activation. Also, the amount of ammunition used by defender got drastically reduced.

Still it can be somewhat effective if one side has a big advantage in air, as the air disruption will lead to increased fatigue. On the other hand, in case the defenders are below national morale, they can increase in morale quite drastically, actually leading to stronger defense.

In the case shown, the air support was probably the reason of the attacks of your opponent. He did pay a significant price in thousands of losses. Probably Soviets can afford it from time to time... His attack will most likely succeed without all those pre-attacks anyway 150k vs 20k troops, 3k artillery vs 250, similar air support and most likely high engineering value - that sounds like a win for me... Also note that you probably get the fort reduced during the battle, which means that 498 cv value reported is inflated when compared to the initial value - there must have been some good leadership rolls to get such an increase when facing almost 10x numerically superior enemy.

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 4

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 8:18:36 AM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

Low odds atacks even unsucesful increase the detection level of enemy units , this in turn alows follow up atacks to fire and hit
the defenders .

(in reply to Toidi)

Post #: 5

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 5:19:11 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

What is cheesy about it? Given a week long turn, rotating units in and out of attack doesn't seem egregious to me. But I am actually curious about why others think it is wrong, maybe something I don't see right off. Plus look at total losses, the Sovs take 4x total losses to push the germans back one hex.... doesn't seem terrible to me....

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 6

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 5:39:50 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

More trouble than it is worth. Just get it right the first time without soak off attacks.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 7

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/6/2014 6:04:16 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

What is cheesy about it?

It's cheesy because bogus attacks are used to trick the game engine into doing something it wouldn't normally do. In this case using loads of bombers to cause disruption and fatigue. Now there are different levels of cheese ranging from Gouda to Stilton. In my opinion these wave attacks qualify as Gouda because the Soviet player accepts high losses in men and airplanes so there is a real cost associated with this strategy.

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 8

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 12:15:30 AM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Ok, I get what you are saying. I am not so sure it is that bad because you could do the same with just air attacks.

I also think there is a problem with the time model. You can use all those soak-off attacks and then still have the normal attack units go in with their full mp. In other words, the soak-off doesn't take any time. It is the same issue with panzer breakthrough and air resupply.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 9

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 12:26:56 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Its not good for another reason. Your building morale of the defender with all those wins.

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 10

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 12:35:28 AM

BrianG

Posts: 4653
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline

I think a fair use.

Russians would throw waves and waves at the Germans until they were overwhelmed and got what they wanted. These massive attacks should be seen as a week long battle. Night attacks and day attacks. All night long.

Its use is reserved for must have hexes. It also makes German units much weaker for the inevitable follow on break thru attacks.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 11

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 12:56:16 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Seriously, guys: more trouble than it is worth.

Just win, baby. All the soak off attacks in this example were utterly unnecessary. It isn't cheese. It's just stupid and pointless. (If it actually were effective, then it might be cheese.)

The final attack could have just as easily succeeded on the first shot without all this throat clearing. All the soak off attacks did was feed morale to the defender and rob morale from the soak off attackers. This is worse than useless.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to BrianG)

Post #: 12

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 1:24:33 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

This was nerfed long ago.

He could have simply attacked the first time and won.

The reason it worked before nerf was AMMO.

It does not hurt reserves unless the odds are at least 1:2.

So now your simply building enemy morale and wasting troops for nothing.

Tricking AI not its been nerfed let the moron keep doing it, trust me I have played vs people tring this after nerf and it was a disaster for him.

The only + for him is the disruption caused by the planes on your troops, but he won because of Sappers fort lvl 3 to 0

< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/7/2014 2:31:22 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 13

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 1:32:11 AM

BrianG

Posts: 4653
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline

From the above I would say one attack would not be sufficient. Unless you have that 2x Russian leader roll up your sleeve. You would need over 600 CV into 3 forts. Also, We don't know how many divisions(hexes) were in this attack. If its from only 2 hexes, then soak off may have been the only way.

imo

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 14

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 2:07:46 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

BrianG, the raw numbers involved in the final attack speak for themselves: 150k men versus 20k, nearly 3k artillery versus 250, etc. These are immense superiorities both in relative and absolute terms. There is every reason to believe this is an attack that could succeed on the first shot. And it went in with enough engineering assets to knock out all 3 levels of forts.

Launch one bombing run, and then go to town. Soaks offs are not cost effective, not anymore. You can no longer force reserves to react or deplete ammo with them.

The only remaining exploit is in the ability to launch as many bombing attacks as you please. Most folks have house rules to limit this. But tiny ground based soak off attacks per se? Not worth it anymore.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to BrianG)

Post #: 15

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 5:33:04 PM

hooooper_slith

Posts: 540
Joined: 10/26/2012
Status: offline

As the attacker in that scenario, I was using (historically accurate) wearing down attacks to ... wear down the Germans. Going by the indicative CV values, I was well short of 1:1 if I'd attacked straight away, and I wouldn't have been able to reorganise 2nd Shock for a successful second echelon attack. The aim was to increase fatigue and disorganise the defenders, and leverage my air assets - as already pointed out.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 16

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 6:52:33 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hooooper

As the attacker in that scenario, I was using (historically accurate) wearing down attacks to ... wear down the Germans. Going by the indicative CV values, I was well short of 1:1 if I'd attacked straight away, and I wouldn't have been able to reorganise 2nd Shock for a successful second echelon attack. The aim was to increase fatigue and disorganise the defenders, and leverage my air assets - as already pointed out.

Then bomb the target. Repeatedly. No ground attacks needed.

Pity you don't have a save, because I am certain you would have done the job in one ground attack. The CV values you are pointing at have zero predictive value, because they do not reflect the 3000 artillery pieces involved in the real attack that are disrupting and suppressing the defenders, nor the sappers that cleared the forts.

Test this for yourself in solo conditions in similar situations. You might be surprised.

Minor soak off attacks such as the ones you launched do not net much in terms of fatigue as compared to pure air attacks. They also enhance the defender's morale. It's a wash, more or less, an illusion.

This used to be a good tactic, but not anymore.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to hooooper_slith)

Post #: 17

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 8:40:06 PM

Disgruntled Veteran

Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

I used this tactic once against the hex guarding the Neva river crossing near Leningrad...before the patch fixed it. I launched 5-6 soak off attacks which absorbed the defenders ammo and fatigue then hit them with the full attack. Its cheesy. Now of course I can't possibly see a good reason to do it.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 18

RE: Soviet Wave Attacks - 1/7/2014 11:59:33 PM

hooooper_slith

Posts: 540
Joined: 10/26/2012
Status: offline

Interesting. My experience has been that air attacks fall off greatly in effect depending on the fortification level of the hex attacked, and as they're first mission only, I tend to save the planes for unfortified targets. On the other hand, wearing down attacks with a brigade or weak division can create multiple air attacks with the same asset, as in the example above.

I should add that it also gets more mileage out of support artillery units.

< Message edited by hooooper -- 1/8/2014 1:01:41 AM >

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)

Post #: 19