Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".

I wouldn't want this part of it. I don't see why an attacker should have knowledge of the defender's stance. Far too helpful and unrealistic. I'd rather that if you make a deliberate attack it's a chance you take.
As always with these things leader quality and personality type should have a strong influence on casualties and stances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab My preference would be that some leaders are simply incapable of selecting certain stances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Without teaching the AI when and how to use it (that's the hard part), I would imagine that it could work like this:

1) Every unit should have defensive stance attribute, that tells what tactics it will use when attacked:
- withdraw: unit falls back as soon as attacked (apply 80-90% reduction to firefight and post-combat losses; retreat regardless of final CV ratio; massively reduce chance to rout or shatter)
- delay (apply 50-70% reduction to firefight and post-combat losses; retreat at 1:1 final CV ratio; reduce chance to rout or shatter)
- hold (normal combat, just like now)
- hold at all cost (apply retreat-like post-combat losses to both sides; never retreat; slightly increase chance to rout or shatter - that's the only way possible to vacate the target hex after combat)
2) In case of units with different stances, use the strongest form of defense.
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".
4) For user-friendliness, it should be possible to alter this for all units under single HQ in one go, just like you can turn refit on or off. Also, in Commander's Report.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
It would be possible to make leader morale rolls for hold at all cost stance, and to make leader initiative rolls for withdraw/delay stances, and convert them to hold if failed.

quote:

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question

Ive thought of them as being:

hasty - off the cuff, quick attack

deliberate - preplanned, coordinated attack

both using as much of the attacking force as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Like I said, it's only a simplification for playability purposes and can be even explained by effects of scale. I agree that hasty/deliberate represent something other than stance, just like you said. I would offer the following attacking stances:
a) probe
b) normal attack
c) all-out assault
These could be connected with hasty/deliberate as normal. You can imagine aggressive German tactics of motorized trops being all-out assault in hasty mode, maximizing speed at the cost of higher casualties (unsustainable against determined defense, but good when pursuing an enemy. Deliberate probes would be meek Montgomery's tactics, aimed at conserving manpower at all cost.

And as before:
probe would reduce attacker's firepower and attacker's and defender's post-combat losses, and would require a 3:1 ratio to capture hex
all-out assault would increase attacker's and defender's post-combat lossesand would require a 1.5:1 ratio to capture hex (unless trumped by all-out defense)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
(and I did get that extra ticket)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
I think that delay and withdraw are the same thing. Doctrinally a delay is an operation where a force trades space for time in order to maintain combat power. I'm also wondering whether static should become hold at all costs and the demotorising aspects are moved alongside the motorising bit. Whilst combat stances are in discussion Refit needs to become a logistics function and not a combat stance unless refit reduces CV. At the moment refit is too much have your cake and eat it for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question

Ive thought of them as being:

hasty - off the cuff, quick attack

deliberate - preplanned, coordinated attack

both using as much of the attacking force as possible.

The MP expenditure is important here. Advancing units will not deploy if possible as it takes time to do so and then re-form. Usually, a division will advance in echelon with only the advanced elements engaging the enemy. Only when significant resistance is spotted or encountered will a decision be made to deploy second echelon units to provide muscle to an attack.

quote:

Theoretically German units at Stalingrad were in static mode, all horses were sent as far back as Rostov, to conserve "freight" space for fodder. At the same time they were attacking. So one has to reconsider also what static means. Correct term would be demotorization (and dehorsing?), imobbilizing them (unless they want to lose their artillery) but being able to fight on foot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I was talking about the period when they still weren't cut off, but were trying to capture the city, while theoretically static (one of the reasons it was hard to give order to retreat once Uranus started - all artillery would be lost).

quote:

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

Or they hold till morale breaks or forced out.

quote:

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

It Doesnt. Either Germans surround a city and then take it by storm with little to no losses- or its stormed in a 1 week assault again with light losses. Is why the game is a complete failure for simulating city fights.

Even the the only stance offered to defenders was hold at all costs would be good IMO. Keep combat as it is now, and add a hold at all cost order.

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

The key thing would be hold at all costs should be make deliberate assaults against the location much more costly for both sides since neither wants to give up.

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

It Doesnt. Either Germans surround a city and then take it by storm with little to no losses- or its stormed in a 1 week assault again with light losses. Is why the game is a complete failure for simulating city fights.

Even the the only stance offered to defenders was hold at all costs would be good IMO. Keep combat as it is now, and add a hold at all cost order.

You could even make hold at all costs orders/stance cost AP to keep players from doing it to every unit in their army.

The key thing would be hold at all costs should be make deliberate assaults against the location much more costly for both sides since neither wants to give up.

Static mode may be a good simulation of this---just make it affect the combat results as well. Kind of hard to retreat with no motorization and only enough horses to move supplies.

The WitW (and therefore WitE2.0) set up is different as units can feed from depots. This makes surrounded units much more resilient.

quote:

Agreed.

Of course, it is a game, and the german player must have a real chance to win, but the balance shouldnt be 100% historic. Playing Germany should be difficult (if you achieve to win) but lets give the german player a chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Are you playing WitW? WitE2.0 is a development of WitW and not WitE. Some things are already in game and others are in train (no clues on which is which).

quote:

1. Option to play with Hitler and Stalin inference and political consequences (the DE:B system isn't perfect but I'm so glad some Me has done it). Make the player have to listen to politicians. They set goals, and total failure can lead to loss by replacement! Give players a reason why sending Panzers north or South *might* be a bad idea. Give Soviet players a reason to not just abandon Kiev right away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: uw06670

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Are you playing WitW? WitE2.0 is a development of WitW and not WitE. Some things are already in game and others are in train (no clues on which is which).

quote:

1. Option to play with Hitler and Stalin inference and political consequences (the DE:B system isn't perfect but I'm so glad some Me has done it). Make the player have to listen to politicians. They set goals, and total failure can lead to loss by replacement! Give players a reason why sending Panzers north or South *might* be a bad idea. Give Soviet players a reason to not just abandon Kiev right away.

+1 I suggested this when I first started playing as a way to make the game more historical. Would be cool as an optional rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kosmoface
The problem is, if life interrupts it is really difficult for me to get back into the bigger scenarios I started to play. Further more drawing some arrows and seeing if I can follow my plan would make the game much more comprehensible and easier to manage.