Can we get this fixed?

[Karri]

Well, well. I was on the verge of breaking through a Soviet line made of tank brigades, ready to begin the encirclement of a close to hundred Soviet divisions. All I needed was 3 or more combat rounds. So I planned my first round of combat, hit the calc button. And what happens? Well a Soviet railroad construction unit attacked by a recon unit(minimise losses, all MPs left) burns up my turn.
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"

This has to be a bug, right? It is mostly caused by small units with hard to destroy equipment. Really pisses off when units that are practically not worthy for combat burn the entire turn, when in the mean time entire rifle divisions vanish in thin air with no problem what so ever.

[Veers]

This is not technically a bug. This is known to happen with small unit engagements. The best thing here, if this kind of thing bothers you, which it appears it does, is to agree with your opponent on setting a Max Rounds Per Battle before you begin the scenario. It will avoid such turn burns.
For your current game, the smart thing to do is leave those attacks until later in the turn, or cross your fingers.[;)]

[Zort]

[:D]Now I get to whine again. I don't know how many times I have attacked a small unit with several much larger units and not only does the smaller guy not lose anything but kills up to 3 times as many squads as he has. I can understand small units holding out against larger ones but if my oppenant puts up a line of (in FITE) MP units, AA, AT and eng all dugin, in supply, they are more likely to hold out then armor/inf divisions backed up with art.

So yea I can change the combat rounds but that still doesn't mean that a unit of 10 squads should hold out for 2 turns against a whole division repeatedly.

Yes once the small guys aren't dug in, have low proficiency, low supply they die easily. So one way to get rid of this problem (as I see it) is just to get rid of the smaller ants. Even though this is a nuisance, it can be dealt with. But I have fun whining!![;)]

[fulcrum90]

I had the same issue playing 3 scenarios: Crusader, Alamein and Tobruk. In the first attack, using limited with minimal looses with several units, different sizes..ever had one or two attacks with this problem, so my turn burnt up with the first round. And I´ve played both sides in these scenarios. I think that perhaps can to be a bug here
Rarely happened this to me with Century of Warfare except in attacks to units surrounded. These attacks I´ve prefered ever run in the end of turn with 40 or 30 per cent.

[Karri]

Actually, depending on what causes this determines if it's a bug or not...

[fulcrum90]

Really an attack with a small unit in limited/minimal looses against units not surrounded shouldn't burnt up the turn....But this (and using units of different sizes) is that happened to me each turn...You can check it playing some turns of these scenarios.
I have to say that I´ve used these attacks playing Kharkov 42, GIO, DNO, Guadalcanal without problems..perphaps depends of the scenario design...but was a surprise to me get these results

[JAMiAM]

It must be Friday the 13th...

[SMK-at-work]

Zort is disingeneous - mostly it has happened recently when I've atacked his surrounded recce battalions way out in front of the Axis army in FitE.....[:'(][:'(][:D]

[Zort]

[:D]Not really it was that one AA unit that lasted 4 attacks by one pz div and 3 inf divs. [:@]

[SMK-at-work]

I'm sure it was the 3 or 4 recce battalions that were surrounded by Sov's and held out 2- 3 turns!! 

[KoenigMKII]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Well, well. I was on the verge of breaking through a Soviet line made of tank brigades, ready to begin the encirclement of a close to hundred Soviet divisions. All I needed was 3 or more combat rounds. So I planned my first round of combat, hit the calc button. And what happens? Well a Soviet railroad construction unit attacked by a recon unit(minimise losses, all MPs left) burns up my turn.
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"
"Axis continue attack"

This has to be a bug, right? It is mostly caused by small units with hard to destroy equipment. Really pisses off when units that are practically not worthy for combat burn the entire turn, when in the mean time entire rifle divisions vanish in thin air with no problem what so ever.

I have also noticed that a small unit weak unit on a communication route can effectively wreck an entire turn for 30+ other units or more, because of the taking of multiple bites at a turn. Confiscating movement points from unmoved units (distant from the initial minor sub-turn skirmish) is particularly frustrating.

It seems the more units you have the more the un-usable the yellow star clock thing is when you need to kick a knat out the way, then move your armies.

In the end I give up, give orders to all my units, then go. At least I don't get robbed of a turn that way.

Is something is also wrong with the "combat results table", sometimes the knat stops a heavy attack. In open country the knat should die 100% of the time.

edited to defang post.

[Dave Ferguson]

This problem has gone some way to spoiling the game for me and has been around since the first edition? In one situation i had a decimated pure T-34 brigade with 12 tanks left hold off entire fresh german infantry divisions in a 10km, half week turn scenario. I was screaming sneak up on them in the dark you idiots!!
 
It seems the problem lies with the equipment based combat engine, in the example above the infantry division had no equipment which would force a pure tank unit to retreat. What is needed is some form of overwhelming force algorithm based on the comparitive unit sizes, hex scale and turn length. e.g. tiny units defending large hexes would be considered vulnerable to tactical outflanking, especially on turns involving periods of darkness.
 
Ant sized units are another problem made worse by the game engine sub-dividing units on combat. I might design a scenario with division/brigade/regiment sized units but those regiments keep dividing. Is there a switch to disable this?

[a white rabbit]

..small armoured units still aren't dieing ..
 
..pm sent James..

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson
It seems the problem lies with the equipment based combat engine, in the example above the infantry division had no equipment which would force a pure tank unit to retreat. What is needed is some form of overwhelming force algorithm based on the comparitive unit sizes, hex scale and turn length. e.g. tiny units defending large hexes would be considered vulnerable to tactical outflanking, especially on turns involving periods of darkness.

Exactly. This is something that we've discussed in development and we are looking into tweaking the engine to account for these situations.

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson
Ant sized units are another problem made worse by the game engine sub-dividing units on combat. I might design a scenario with division/brigade/regiment sized units but those regiments keep dividing. Is there a switch to disable this?

Not currently. As a workaround, you can divide the units in the editor, and that will prevent them from breaking down further. Or, you could make them section sized units. Either way, the naming conventions or sizes would be a bit wonky, with sizes or historical unit designations being misrepresented.

Also, when dividing units in the editor, great care must be made to ensure that the OOB does not get expanded in subsequent scenario revision, as it locks down the OOB.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..small armoured units still aren't dieing ..

..pm sent James..

This is still a problem at certain scales. See my reply to Dave. When faced with situations where the individual fire/attrition model is not causing enough casualties on very small units to kill them, you should do the following.

1. Evaluate the possibility of this before play, and edit the scenario in question to have a small MRPB setting. No higher than 3, is my suggestion. Possibly even as low as one, for certain situations. While you're there, see if the scenario has any other parameters set that are exacerbating the problem. For example the Dnepr 41 scenario has a high attrition divider (which lowers combat losses) coupled with the designer's honor rule of no active disengagement. This results in extremely low losses and very high unit survival rates. A scenario such as this should definitely have an MRPB set to one, in my opinion.

2. Utilize a combination of hard anti-armor units (pure tanks), passive defender anti-armor units, and directed, massive artillery support during the attacks. This will minimize that number of units of yours that will break off due to enemy fire and defensive bombardment, while maximizing the attritional model to cause losses.

3. Do NOT completely surround the ant units that you are trying to attack. Give them a way to retreat if they do suffer casualties. The followup attacks with them in retreated deployment and minimize losses will be much easier. Also, you will have some better opportunities to gain RBC's which either will eliminate them directly, or to retreat them into stacks where the attritional model will be more likely to cause them casualties in follow up attacks. Always remember that if your objective is to keep moving, then keep the path open for the enemy to move (away) as well.

[tiberius]

How about a divisisibility/indivisibility flag in the engine that scenario designers can set? For a future version.
As to "turn burn" (the original thread issue) isn't there a way to set a max rounds/combat to alleviate this?
Is it possible to set this after a PBEM game is already started?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: tiberius

How about a divisisibility/indivisibility flag in the engine that scenario designers can set? For a future version.

That's a very real possibility.

ORIGINAL: tiberius
As to "turn burn" (the original thread issue) isn't there a way to set a max rounds/combat to alleviate this?

Yes, by using the MRPB feature in the scenario editor and setting it to a reasonable number, like 3.

ORIGINAL: tiberius
Is it possible to set this after a PBEM game is already started?

Unfortunately, no. I had argued for a player adjustable feature in development, but most everyone else wanted a scenario designer set flag. Maybe in future versions, I will twist arms a little harder...[:D]

[tiberius]

Having it be designer set is probably the best idea.
Otherwise it could be a real can of worms from the cheat perspective.
For those of us who didn't think to set it BEFORE we started our game it would have been a real life saver of course.