CRT Table busted

[highpocrisy]

I don't know if anyone noticed yet, but the CRT results table page isn't working.
The only type of terrain it changes for is swamp.

[Carl Myers]

24.2 Combat Results Tables
Each different terrain element in Kharkov has its own set of combat odds columns.
These tables are called Combat Results Tables (CRTs) and they are set by the scenario designer and cannot be altered. They may be viewed by selecting the Terrain/CRT Information button on the Control Panel, or by right-clicking on the Combat Results Panel when using the Close Combat Display.
The scenario designer can allocate different CRTs to different terrain types, although Kharkov has not done this. Terrain types in Kharkov are differentiated through their resistance to Indirect Fire, which makes a big difference to the outcomes of combats.
CRT values can change between Good and Bad ground conditions.

[e_barkmann]

That is by design - there are good and bad weather CRT's, and also separate ones for swamp. There are separate CRT's for strongpoints as well.

The system has other mechanisms for modifying combat outcomes due to in-hex terrain - Indirect Fire casualties are modified by terrain type and also modify the effect of the close Combat retreat die roll if Indirect Fire attacks are successful that turn.

CC retreat die rolls are also modified by defending unit entrenchment/hedgehog status. If you right-click over the CC Results Panel, you will see a summary of these modifiers at the top of the table (eg Artillery -2 Entrenchment +1 Total -1)

What this boils down to is a system where to get someone out of a forest or town, you need to try and soften them up first with artillery to improve your chance of dislodging them. If they are entrenched - this is where the beauty of heavy artillery comes into play as you have a much better chance of causing casualties with heavy. So the game is better reflecting the importance of artillery in the role of combat outcomes and you will find you will need to adjust your play if you are used to the DB way of doing things.

Also, have a look at the AI behaviour once it's forced a retreat of one of your units after close combat - more often than not, it's saved a salvo to lob on the now more vulnerable defenders as they head for cover. Now that's just positively evil, Roger

I can tell you that taking on a prepared defender in the city of Kharkov is a very challenging proposition and you will need plenty of men and artillery to do it properly.

The current system just feels right and now reflects better the importance of artillery in outcomes of battle - IMHO.

cheers Chris

[highpocrisy]

I see..that makes sense...another subtle change.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: highpocrisy

I don't know if anyone noticed yet, but the CRT results table page isn't working.
The only type of terrain it changes for is swamp.

As Carl and Chris have explained, we have chosen to reflect the influence of terrain though mechanisms other than the CRT - except for Swamp which, (somewhat late in development, we felt was different enough to warrant its own CRT.

As Chris has pointed out, the Kharkov system stresses the importance of artillery in determining the outcomes of combat. Terrain that is resistant to artillery, like urban or heavy woods therefore confers a substantial benefit to the defenders and makes a separate CRT unnecessary in those cases.

The Russian artillery is very effective at the start of the battle and its fun to pick on some hapless German regiment stuck out on its own in front of Kharkov. Unfortunately for the Russians, their command and logistics systems are simply unequal to the task of sustaining this performance and the happy times all too quickly end. After that, it takes hard slogging and good planning to get the Germans out of any place that they don't want to relinquish.

Gregor

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

ORIGINAL: highpocrisy

I don't know if anyone noticed yet, but the CRT results table page isn't working.
The only type of terrain it changes for is swamp.

As Carl and Chris have explained, we have chosen to reflect the influence of terrain though mechanisms other than the CRT - except for Swamp which, (somewhat late in development, we felt was different enough to warrant its own CRT.

As Chris has pointed out, the Kharkov system stresses the importance of artillery in determining the outcomes of combat. Terrain that is resistant to artillery, like urban or heavy woods therefore confers a substantial benefit to the defenders and makes a separate CRT unnecessary in those cases.

The Russian artillery is very effective at the start of the battle and its fun to pick on some hapless German regiment stuck out on its own in front of Kharkov. Unfortunately for the Russians, their command and logistics systems are simply unequal to the task of sustaining this performance and the happy times all too quickly end. After that, it takes hard slogging and good planning to get the Germans out of any place that they don't want to relinquish.

Gregor

So if I understand this correctly ... what you are saying is that all things being equla and no armour or artillery present ... an infantry regiment in an open hex is in the same position defensively wise as if it were in the middle of Kharkov city itself .. and recieves no benefit for being so ... I understand all of whats been said above but that just doesnt seem right ...

[Gregor_SSG]

The critical part of your question is 'no armor or artillery' present. If you don't have those, and if the regiment in question has its flanks protected, then its going to be very hard to dislodge no matter what terrain it is in. One of the changes with the Kharkov system is that combat is not so much about directly causing casualties, although of course that is always important, but its more about inducing the defenders to retreat, forcing them out of their entrenchment and then really causing casualties when they are on the run and more vulnerable.

There will be plenty of initial attacks, where the attacker takes more casualties than the defenders, thanks to the Direct Defence rolls of the defending units. However, so long as you have got a retreat result, then the combat will have been a success and if you have planned correctly, you will be able to follow up and exploit the situation.

Gregor

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

The critical part of your question is 'no armor or artillery' present. If you don't have those, and if the regiment in question has its flanks protected, then its going to be very hard to dislodge no matter what terrain it is in. ....

Erm.... are you saying that for the game purpose it's the same thing to defend within a city and to defend in a frozen steppe?

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

The critical part of your question is 'no armor or artillery' present. If you don't have those, and if the regiment in question has its flanks protected, then its going to be very hard to dislodge no matter what terrain it is in. ....

Erm.... are you saying that for the game purpose it's the same thing to defend within a city and to defend in a frozen steppe?

The critical words are 'if there's no artillery present' but if the fight is in any way important you will have artillery present. As we all know, combat in wargames is always an abstratction and there are various different models that have been used in both boardgames and computer games. Since they are all abstractions, and pretty massive ones at that, there is no way to argue their correctness from first principles.

All you can do is try them and see if they produce a result that makes sense. For me, Kharkov does just that. If I see an opponent defending in a Forest or city hex, I immediately feel that I have a problem, because my artillery will be less effective. I want to see if I can outflank it, either by picking off units on the flanks or more broadly by encirclement, or to bring up the heavy artillery which is less affected by terrain. I know its going to be hard to just blast it out with an unsupported frontal assault. To me, that's the right result.

As an alternative, consider our earlier games where terrain did not affect artillery at all, or where artillery couldn't even cause step losses. Were those games completely wrong? No, they just manipulated abstract elements slightly differently to get the results that the game designer wanted.

In the end, it's how the game plays that decides how well the design works.

Gregor

[Joram]

Very well put!  I think a lot of people lose sight of how difficult it is to model these kinds of things.

[DBeves]

Sorry Gregor - I still dont see your point - I think it great that the system models the effect of terrain on artillery effectiveness - and I also like the way the impact on armour is simulated - some games forget completely about armours limited effectiveness in a city.

My point still is that infantry in a city should be better off in a city than they are in an open plain - regrdless of armour or artillery support . that to me is not game design just common sense. Perhaps you can think of a wargame - computer or otherwise where the defender in a city vs one in open ground wasnt differetiated in some way with regard to combat.

If the Kharkov game was about stalingrad would you have done the same thing - ie left infantry vs infantry combat undifferentiated between combat outside the city on the steppe and the terrain in the city itself. I would suggest that wouldnt have worked as a game.

I think its an important point to let people know though as I wouldnt necessarily go through all the CRT data in the game - just presume I was better off in a city than I was in an open field. Cant say that consideration would be limited to the effects of just armour or artillery.

For example - I always thought that infantry - as far as artillery is concerned were worse off in a wood because of tree bursts etc and the enhancement of the shrapnel effects due to wood splinters - but I may prefer to occupy the wood anyhow as the advantages of concelament etc for the coming infantry assault make it worth sitting out the bombardment - in your model that would be an irrelevant choice to make.

I love all these series from ssg - and never quite understood all the battlefront lack of content nonsense - gamers got a completely new system and four different and unusual battles - plus now some truly excellent user created stuff. Ignore all the nay sayers and continue the good work

[Carl Myers]

DBeves>>My point still is that infantry in a city should be better off in a city than they are in an open plain - regrdless of armour or artillery support . that to me is not game design just common sense.

An infantry squad would have an easier time holding off an attack from an infantry company assualting from covered positions 25 to 50 feet away than from an infantry company assualting from across thousand meters of open plain???

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

The critical part of your question is 'no armor or artillery' present. If you don't have those, and if the regiment in question has its flanks protected, then its going to be very hard to dislodge no matter what terrain it is in. ....

Erm.... are you saying that for the game purpose it's the same thing to defend within a city and to defend in a frozen steppe?

The critical words are 'if there's no artillery present' ...

Actually the critical words are '...The scenario designer can allocate different CRTs to different terrain types, although Kharkov has not done this. ...'.

The way you say it , I must say, it sounds a bit ... well , baffling to be a nice guy.
Trying to translate, I imagine you are saying, for a game simulating the battle of Kharkov, the way we handled CRT's gives an historical result, or as close to as possible, but the scenario designer can manipulate them to produce that same historical result for other types of battles. If that's the case, then I won't dispute that view, I will even agree with it.

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Carl Myers

DBeves>>My point still is that infantry in a city should be better off in a city than they are in an open plain - regrdless of armour or artillery support . that to me is not game design just common sense.

An infantry squad would have an easier time holding off an attack from an infantry company assualting from covered positions 25 to 50 feet away than from an infantry company assualting from across thousand meters of open plain???

A good point - but would depend on how you look at it ... are you applying a modifier for the cover the defenders have vs the ataccker or the other way round - I think it a generally accepted principal that you err on the side of the defender - and the main argument against your point is that the defender gets to stay in and behind his cover - whereas the attacker has to move from out of it if he is on the offensive. Defensively wise - in a city this would open up all kinds of possibilities abush wise .. which I think is the point about city fighting. I understand what you are saying - but it would need a more complicated model to represent it.

I dont think anyone would contend that one of the main advantages the russians had at stalingrad was the cover the rubble and buildings offered.

[Noakesy]

ORIGINAL: DBeves
I dont think anyone would contend that one of the main advantages the russians had at stalingrad was the cover the rubble and buildings offered.

I also found this quite a contentious development, but as has been said in other parts of the thread, the actual application of the tables is down to the designer --- therefore if you wanted to model the city as being even more important such as in Stalingrad, you could.

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Noakesy

ORIGINAL: DBeves
I dont think anyone would contend that one of the main advantages the russians had at stalingrad was the cover the rubble and buildings offered.

I also found this quite a contentious development, but as has been said in other parts of the thread, the actual application of the tables is down to the designer --- therefore if you wanted to model the city as being even more important such as in Stalingrad, you could.

Yep - read that bit about the CRT being decided by the developer - love these games from SSG - so much do-able with a system like this.

But that was mainly my point beyond disagreement with the design decision - about this game in particular - it could / should have been made a specific point and not left to someone to discover by accident ... because I would disagree with your statment it is contentious - more like a massive step from mainstream way of doing things - even if only for this game - which is the one I paid for after all ... not sure I necessarily have the skills to create a couple of CRTs myself - that wouldnt break whats there ..