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:
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):
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.
