Defence strenght in 3.4 patch

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Carolus Rex

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I have been thinking about the question regarding different range of art pieces in the same unit for some time. Dont realy know why I havent tested it, but I now realizes that it has costed the life of several tousands of russians...
When watching the battles resolved as you had planned, for the first time there was losses at the axis side. I now realizes that the importance of art has changed considerably since latest update (which is good since art was and is the big "killer")
Most attacks without artsupport (range 1 hex) however still had 0 % losses for axis side even if attacker outnumbered the defender big time, a bit wierd since the allied units on this level (mostly corps) has considerably amounts of arty incorporated in the unit.
It almost feels like cheating [:D] having been helped by one of the experts, but now my opponent will start to feel the real effeckt of my arty.

No problem. It's not cheating.. consider it a a workshop.

I think it has become clear that the issue being dicussed with defence in TOAW & fortiied status, at least in your case results from a mixture of scenario design quirks (to put it mildly) and a beginner climbing the learning curve.

That of course doesn't mean that there is no room for the engine to be improved.

[ColinWright]

I ran some tests.  The purpose was to verify Curtis' results, but they also shed light on the 'defense strength' issue.

I created simplified regiments of 100 rifle squads, 10 Medium MG's, and 10 81 mm mortars.  Put all the settings I could think of to middling values. 10 km per hex, half-week turns.

Initially, the attacker got eight regiments and attacked one fortified defending regiment with one subdivided unit in mobile deployment.  First the test was run with cooperating defenders, then with uncooperative defenders.  Then the scenarios were modified so that there were only four attacking regiments.

As far as my original purpose goes, I got Curtis' results, to make a long story short.  A noticeable but by no means excessive penalty for uncooperative defenders.

However, I also saw no evidence that the defender was being excessively favored in 3.4 (yes, I checked to make sure I was actually running 3.4).

These attacks were mounted without any artillery support, with units from the same formation, at 'limit losses' against defenders on the same setting.  With eight attacking regiments and cooperating defenders, the defender retreated three out of five times after one round.  Most of the turn was left, and while I didn't track it, often the defender was in no shape to continue to hold the hex thereafter.

More impressively, with only four attacking regiments, the (fortified) defender retreated on two of five trials -- after one round, with no guarantee that he could have held on for the rest of the turn.

4-1 odds without artillery sometimes suffices to promptly take a fortified position?  I don't see any excessive bias in favor of the defender -- to say the least.

[ColinWright]

As an addendum, just for fun I ran the four-regiment variant with no mobile unit in the defending hex -- just pure, fortified defender.

The defender retreated on three of five trials. 

[ColinWright]

As a thought, in the original case cited, what is the proficiency of the defender?

Generally, strange things will start happening as one starts approaching 90% proficiency -- and an untried unit that starts at 80% proficiency can easily bounce up to 90% proficiency. If that battalion has somehow got to 95% proficiency or something, it wouldn't surprise me if it holds on until every active defender in it has been literally killed.

This may be the problem -- if there's a problem at all.  If so, it's a design flaw rather than anything to do with 3.4.

One always wants to model one's elite units.  However, I'd advise just making everyone else worse -- don't start with untried units above about 70% or veterans above about 80%.  For those who note that I violate this rule myself, I can only offer my father's advice.  Do as I say, not as I do.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I would be in the ridiculous position of asking them to give you permission something to do something you haven't asked to do. Should I e-mail my neighbor's employer asking them if they can give him next Saturday off?

No. You're asking me to be in the ridiculus position of middleman between you and the Matrix officials. They're the ones that would be posting anything. In fact, I can't even post the What's New if I wanted to. The file is too big for my authorization level.

You claim you listed the proposed changes for 3.4. Okay, you did. So why can't you list the proposed changes for 3.41 or whatever this next one is to be?

No. You read me wrong. Matrix posted the What's New and the betas, not me.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As far as my original purpose goes, I got Curtis' results, to make a long story short.  A noticeable but by no means excessive penalty for uncooperative defenders.

Thank you, Colin.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".

The Attack Planner's projection is formed independently from the Assault Ratio calculation. The Assault Ratio value is only used to determine the attack type and says little about the attack's success chances. That's what the Planner's projection (based upon some sort of odds calculation) is for (and take that with a grain of salt, too).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".

The Attack Planner's projection is formed independently from the Assault Ratio calculation. The Assault Ratio value is only used to determine the attack type and says little about the attack's success chances. That's what the Planner's projection (based upon some sort of odds calculation) is for (and take that with a grain of salt, too).

About the only influence the attack planners' projection has on me is that if it projects the attack isn't going to work, I check what I'm doing. I take it for what it's worth -- which isn't much.

And that's fine. When I want sure, predictable outcomes, I'll go back to playing chess.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I would be in the ridiculous position of asking them to give you permission something to do something you haven't asked to do. Should I e-mail my neighbor's employer asking them if they can give him next Saturday off?

No. You're asking me to be in the ridiculus position of middleman between you and the Matrix officials. They're the ones that would be posting anything. In fact, I can't even post the What's New if I wanted to. The file is too big for my authorization level.

You claim you listed the proposed changes for 3.4. Okay, you did. So why can't you list the proposed changes for 3.41 or whatever this next one is to be?

No. You read me wrong. Matrix posted the What's New and the betas, not me.

Have it your way. I just think it would be more efficient, not less, if we argued about what was going in the patch beforehand rather than afterwards.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

It seems to be a weird thing that i am told by the attack planer to have a low chance for success and will probably suffer heavy losses with an assault ratio of 800+. As i understand it the attack ratio calculation doesn't take into account support units and attacker's passive defender equipment. Nor combat density or deployment...though the What's New .pdf states "there is a great deal of complexity behind the scenes that has been omitted from this description".

The Attack Planner's projection is formed independently from the Assault Ratio calculation. The Assault Ratio value is only used to determine the attack type and says little about the attack's success chances. That's what the Planner's projection (based upon some sort of odds calculation) is for (and take that with a grain of salt, too).

I want to touch on this once more, having thought about it some.

An Assault Ratio of 800 means the attackers are more or less 8 times as strong as the defenders. But the defenders have a defense benefit of 11.31. That produces combat odds of 8/11.31 = 0.707. With odds less than one, I would expect the Attack Planner to project heavy losses and little chance of success.

To get exellent chances of success, one would need actual odds of about 10:1. That's going to require the attackers to be on the order of 113 times as strong as the defenders. Even under earlier versions, the same situation would have required them to be 80 times as strong. This whole issue may be that players are underestimating the force necessary to ensure the taking of Fortified Line postions.

And there's another factor not mentioned yet. Under earlier versions terrain had no impact on the chance of forcing the defender to retreat. It was as easy to dislodge a unit from a Fortified Line hex as it was from a Clear hex. And that fact probably accounted for most captures of Fortified Line hexes in the past. That's been changed in 3.4. Units are much less likely to retreat from such hexes now. So you actually have to battle them out of their pillboxes the hard way.

[Panama]

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



...And there's another factor not mentioned yet. Under earlier versions terrain had no impact on the chance of forcing the defender to retreat. It was as easy to dislodge a unit from a Fortified Line hex as it was from a Clear hex. And that fact probably accounted for most captures of Fortified Line hexes in the past. That's been changed in 3.4. Units are much less likely to retreat from such hexes now. So you actually have to battle them out of their pillboxes the hard way.

I don't actually disagree with this -- depending on how it pans out in practice, sounds good.

However, note that no fortress in World War Two actually withstood assault.

They all fell if someone made it their business to take them. Even Tobruk is more or less the exception that proves the rule, as Rommel was never able to muster really adequate forces for an assault in 1941. Sevastopol, Tarawa, Singapore, Corrigidor -- they all fell once the enemy was able to mount a properly prepared assault. Mellenthin's memoirs recount the German operations against the Maginot Line in June 1940 -- and conclude that those forts, too, could have been taken had there been the need.

Equally to the point, even World War One offensives often 'worked' to some extent. The defender could be and often was knocked out of his fortified belt. The problem tended to be that the attackers then found themselves occupying positions pointed the wrong way, with no means of bringing adequate supplies up across the devastation of no man's land, and no way of arranging artillery support, given the technology of the time.

So the erstwhile defender could usually counterattack and regain the ground lost.

I mention this because I often see posts concerned with jacking the defensive impact of fortifications higher still. Given the historical record, that's a dubious project. If one was able to create untakable hexes in TOAW, it wouldn't be very accurate.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.

As far as I know, engineers do accelerate the speed at which one entrenches. What exactly did you want?

[robryl]

I have sure noticed that it is hard to make a defender retreat from a fortified hex. I have a question regarding the defensive lines, since many hexes in Götterdammung havent got fortied lines in all directions, how does the game handle this? My experience is that even if attacking from a direction where no lines exist, the defence is realy tough.
And what if attacking from several directions, both cross fortlines and not. Is there different calculations in the same battle?

[sPzAbt653]

Its my understanding that any Fortification tile within a hex provides protection for all sides. So you can put one on all six hexsides or one on only one hexside and get the same benefits. This doesn't negate the effect of attacking from a flanking position though.

To the engineer question, Engineer Squads have the same Anti-Personel value as Assault Squads, so they do have a greater effect than other squads when assaulting positions. Also, designers can put special equipment like bazookas, flamethrowers or heavy mg's into the engineer units. So the icon may not have an effect, but the equipment does.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.

As far as I know, engineers do accelerate the speed at which one entrenches. What exactly did you want?

[:D][:D][:D]

Good joke.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Its my understanding that any Fortification tile within a hex provides protection for all sides. So you can put one on all six hexsides or one on only one hexside and get the same benefits. This doesn't negate the effect of attacking from a flanking position though.

To the engineer question, Engineer Squads have the same Anti-Personel value as Assault Squads, so they do have a greater effect than other squads when assaulting positions. Also, designers can put special equipment like bazookas, flamethrowers or heavy mg's into the engineer units. So the icon may not have an effect, but the equipment does.

Yes, they can act like an infantry squad. And you can make up for a huge oversight by messing with the stats in the database. That last should be a standard answer for all things concering units I guess. But I would rather see them unentrench units like heavy artillery. I'm probably just pissing in the wind. [8|]

[ColinWright]

Part of the problem is that there are all kinds of engineers.

There are engineers who spend their time fixing bridges -- and never see combat. There were units like the Italian guastatori -- who were essentially heavily armed assault troops. There were engineers equipped with special mine-clearing vehicles. There are engineers who lay mines, engineers that set up water purification systems...

In reality, sometimes these functions overlap. Sometimes they don't. But we've just got the 'engineer' squad. It's as if we had a 'dog' counter. Never mind that there are sight hounds, scent hounds, hunting dogs, guard dogs, fighting dogs, lap dogs...we've just got 'dog.' Sort of a labrador retriever-pekinese-pit bull cross.

Point is 'engineers' shouldn't be able to or not be able to do anything at all. That would depend on the engineer in question.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

When will engineers have an effect on fortified or entrenched units? This seems to be a persistant oversight.

As far as I know, engineers do accelerate the speed at which one entrenches. What exactly did you want?

[:D][:D][:D]

Good joke.

? I was just thinking of the special ability of engineers to affect the entrenchment of one's own forces.

I'm not really sure there's a need for them to have some special ability to assist in assaults on fortified positions. That strikes me as one of those 'improvements' that might leave things as skewed after as they were before -- only in the opposite direction. You're baffled by Fort Colin -- until you bring up your engineer battalion. Then it falls.

Maybe. It would depend on the specifics of the situation and the specifics of the units involved.

For what it's worth, I did slug through Glatz's Stalingrad books. I don't recall any special effort to bring up engineers. Paulus did eventually strip the engineer battalions from many of his divisions that weren't involved in the fighting in the city -- but simply because he needed more infantry, not because the engineers were going to bring anything special to the task.

[Panama]

Good to know combat engineers were never used by anyone.