Urban terrain combat balance

[ShaggyHiK]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: loki100

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

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.

Did you think from the same side, but for a Soviet player? What will happen if in 1941 a German player puts a fortess in Moscow, if he takes it?
How the fortess will work if the German player puts the city fortress in Smolensk before winter. Which is deep in the rear and will take its tank divisions there on the map?

[Jango32]

These sorts of considerations are probably a good reason to perhaps revise the current hex stacking system and instead compare the number of men & equipment to determine how much can sit on a hex, like in War in the Pacific. Stacking 3 Soviet corps on a hex (which can reach over 300 000 men) and be fine from a logistical and attritional point of view isn't great.

Defining the total number of men & equipment per hex type that can be safely parked before attrition and logistical hurdles interfere could help. So that way you can't park over 400 AFVs in urban hexes (let's say) without starting to suffer attrition. Which could prevent winter Smolensk parking.

After all, the only reason why city forts exist as a game concept is to allow more than 3 on-map counters to be stacked on a hex. There is no other reason.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

ORIGINAL: Stamb

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.

Did you think from the same side, but for a Soviet player? What will happen if in 1941 a German player puts a fortess in Moscow, if he takes it?
How the fortess will work if the German player puts the city fortress in Smolensk before winter. Which is deep in the rear and will take its tank divisions there on the map?

You can use hexes on pre war territory for a reserve deployment only. In general I do not need an ability to create a fortress as an Axis as i do not have enough units to fulfill it anyway. Lets go back to a main topic.

ORIGINAL: Jango32

These sorts of considerations are probably a good reason to perhaps revise the current hex stacking system and instead compare the number of men & equipment to determine how much can sit on a hex, like in War in the Pacific. Stacking 3 Soviet corps on a hex (which can reach over 300 000 men) and be fine from a logistical and attritional point of view isn't great.

Defining the total number of men & equipment per hex type that can be safely parked before attrition and logistical hurdles interfere could help. So that way you can't park over 400 AFVs in urban hexes (let's say) without starting to suffer attrition. Which could prevent winter Smolensk parking.

After all, the only reason why city forts exist as a game concept is to allow more than 3 on-map counters to be stacked on a hex. There is no other reason.

+1

But still it will not prevent such a results as we have right now.

I think that if combat results is not 2 or higher for an attacking side - then defending side should not route/retreat, like on the first image in this post). But stay in an urban area, just with a low TOE. We can clearly see that defenders won a battle 1:1:3. And for some reasons they decided to route out of the city (urban area).

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

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.

This thread was not really about city forts in the first place, but I just want to point out that I don't think it is really actually true that Germany can get more divisions with a high degree of probability into urban battles by reserve activation.

Reserve activation depends not just on the commander's initiative rating, but also on whether the commander thinks that activating an additional unit would make a difference in winning the battle. How does the commander assess if an additional unit would make a difference in the battle? I don't know since I can't see the programming, but I would assume that this is based on the CV in the battle. And in this case, if you just looked at the CV, you would think that my attacks against the urban hexes would be easy Axis holds. So therefore, the commander with high initiative would not activate the reserve divisions, and that is an artifact of the fact that the urban defensive CVs are highly misleading.

In addition, units that activate from reserve do not get the benefit of forts.

For what it's worth, Germany did get a reserve activation near Orel which led to a hold a turn or 2 ago, but that was on clear terrain where a Panzer division activated. In this battle, the CVs were such that the commander with initiative thought the Panzer division could make a difference (and it did).



But there was no reserve activation for the defense of Orel itself, probably partly because of the CVs being so misleading (and Orel was not surrounded that turn, only the previous turn, so there were not ZOC issues or anything like that which would have blocked a hypothetical reserve activation).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1
...
I don't know since I can't see the programming, but I would assume that this is based on the CV in the battle.
...

the basic exclusions are in the manual, section 23.7.1 as:

A unit in reserve mode will never commit into a battle if the initial combat value (CV) Note this limit is in addition to the commitment of Support Units that are directly attached to Combat Units involved in the combat.odds ratio is over 10 to 1. A defending reserve unit will also never commit into a battle if the odds are less than 1 to 4.

The second of those rules is important here as these victories can come off very low odds attacks, I lost Stalino at 1-6, so could well be below the threshold for reserve commitment (ie the game system assumes an easy defensive win so doesn't bother)

as you say, City Forts are a red herring here.

I'm not sure there is a ready answer. At one level urban combat was bloody and at close quarters. Due to the game using binary control of hexes, the attacker appears to be moving across open terrain when of course they would probably be slotted into some of the urban area already. Urban hexes are great defensive options on a secondary front but both sides can take them out if they really commit.

In the same game I took Sevastopol off a low odds win, again due to having enough elements to generate heavy losses in urban combat. So its not a problem for one side or the other - its certainly not biased vs the Axis as some suggestions above.

The oddity is that if some of these Soviet attacks were on level 3 forts in woods etc, then the result would have been a one-sided massacre.

[IDGBIA]

Heres a battle to show that it works both ways and soviets can lose on less than 2:1 too, for the record Smolensk was not cut off so the rout is due to the units basically having no working elements at the end of the fighting I assume, dont get me wrong I'd still consider this result a win for soviets in 41 with all those damaged German elements so I suppose this just shows that for both sides urban fighting is a little bit counterintuitive with the rest of the game and how cvs usually work out in battle, as it seems to me the +3 defense modifier on rough seems to protect better that he +6 urban since the fighting is still much more intense to the point were you need elements not just cv to soak up hits, either way cool system I would be interested to see combat become more intense in other hex types like perhaps heavy woods but I understand that may mess with balance idk.

[EddyBear81]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

I think that if combat results is not 2 or higher for an attacking side - then defending side should not route/retreat, like on the first image in this post). But stay in an urban area, just with a low TOE. We can clearly see that defenders won a battle 1:1:3. And for some reasons they decided to route out of the city (urban area).

+1

It's frustrating that you see you "won" the battle, but still lost the hex.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

ORIGINAL: Stamb

I think that if combat results is not 2 or higher for an attacking side - then defending side should not route/retreat, like on the first image in this post). But stay in an urban area, just with a low TOE. We can clearly see that defenders won a battle 1:1:3. And for some reasons they decided to route out of the city (urban area).

+1

It's frustrating that you see you "won" the battle, but still lost the hex.

thats not feasible, and is part of the wider issue. At the end of these battles the defenders have lost so many elements (even if just as disrupted) they are 'unready' and at that stage can't be adjacent to the enemy (unless there is a formation that survived). This is part of the wider game engine, and one reason why an incautious German player can stack up real problems for themselves later into 1941

[Stamb]

here https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=2&key= RedJohn, post 49, was asking was is going on
same situation as here

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

ORIGINAL: Stamb

I think that if combat results is not 2 or higher for an attacking side - then defending side should not route/retreat, like on the first image in this post). But stay in an urban area, just with a low TOE. We can clearly see that defenders won a battle 1:1:3. And for some reasons they decided to route out of the city (urban area).

+1

It's frustrating that you see you "won" the battle, but still lost the hex.

thats not feasible, and is part of the wider issue. At the end of these battles the defenders have lost so many elements (even if just as disrupted) they are 'unready' and at that stage can't be adjacent to the enemy (unless there is a formation that survived). This is part of the wider game engine, and one reason why an incautious German player can stack up real problems for themselves later into 1941

This disproportionately affects German rifle divisions since they regularly have 60% of their manpower tied up in support squads. This causes some weird results. Sometimes, 10,000's of support manpower will be 'supporting' a couple thousand rifle men, which results in massive FPE numbers, and 10,000's of men routing when they never directly participated in combat.

I think there should be a process to convert some of these support squads into rifle squads at some point during or after combat.