Something really wrong with lone AT and Arty units on defense

[abulbulian]

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side. But really? A lone AT unit with some AT guns and 400 men could hold out against the LAH div?

I've been reading in forums that this same messed up logic is going on. Why are lone AT or Arty units supermen? Nothing in history during WW2 would suggest this type of battle result.

Can we get the looked at and fixed? Or some decent explanation as to wtf is going on here. More upsetting because that stupid lone Soviet AT unit ruined some of my plans.

[:(]


NOTE: the 2/3 units of LAH I used with the Mot Inf Reg.

[aspqrz02]

Yep. Historically, unless something truly exceptionally amazingly stupendously lucky happened for Soviets and equal and opposite for Germans, AT gun unit by itself = speed bump. Against most of a division = not much of a speed bump.

I suspect that it's because a DC:CB treats the artillerists and support elements of non-infantry units *as* infantry, whereas, in reality, they were not and should not be treated as such ... unless sent back to the pool by disbanding the unit.

Artillery and support troops *could* act as Infantry, but rarely did well, man for man, in that role compared to *real* infantry.

In reality, they should be a separate troop type and, when not actually manning their artillery pieces, should suffer significant penalties on that base type which, in turn, should be much less effective than infantry.

Phil

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side. But really? A lone AT unit with some AT guns and 400 men could hold out against the LAH div?

I've been reading in forums that this same messed up logic is going on. Why are lone AT or Arty units supermen? Nothing in history during WW2 would suggest this type of battle result.

Can we get the looked at and fixed? Or some decent explanation as to wtf is going on here. More upsetting because that stupid lone Soviet AT unit ruined some of my plans.

[:(]


NOTE: the 2/3 units of LAH I used with the Mot Inf Reg.

LAH against AT - that's not that simple! [:-]

I was not there.

How was the weather? How was the terrain? As the troops were well supplied?
How were the values ​​for readiness, unit integrity, morale, entrenchment, and experience?
Many important questions.

LAH against AT - that's just not that simple!

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: Templer

LAH against AT - that's not that simple! [:-]

I was not there.

How was the weather? How was the terrain? As the troops were well supplied?
How were the values ​​for readiness, unit integrity, morale, entrenchment, and experience?
Many important questions.

LAH against AT - that's just not that simple!

Well, it's simpler than you think.

Unless the LAH was completely out of fuel and ammo, cut off from all resupply and hope of resupply, and had been savaged to the point where it was a mere Kampfgruppe shadow of its former self *and* the Russian AT Brigade was actually equipped with SU-152s or the like, then, really, it would make no difference at all ... 2/3rds of a German mechanised division would go through it like a hot knife through butter.

Towed AT units, and that's what we're talking about, were organised to be used *in conjunction with* infantry units. They simply could *not* stand against mobile forces, except as a speed bump, because they could not defend their flanks and rear in any useful way. They needed to Infantry to cover their retreat and repositioning when they'd gotten off their one or two shots and had been pinpointed and were attracting enough fire to be destroyed, as a general rule.

With infantry backing them up, they could move position ... or be protected enough so they didn't *have* to move position (Tanks by themselves against dug in infantry with good morale, are pretty useless for the most part, too) ... but against a mechanised combined arms unit, SS or not, they're generally dead meat.

So, unless, as I noted, some amazingly stupendously cosmic lucky event happened ... all the German fuel trucks were hit by a meteor shower or something ... the Russians would be doing well to delay for a few hours, maybe half a day if they were realistically lucky ... no more.

Phil

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Templer

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side. But really? A lone AT unit with some AT guns and 400 men could hold out against the LAH div?

I've been reading in forums that this same messed up logic is going on. Why are lone AT or Arty units supermen? Nothing in history during WW2 would suggest this type of battle result.

Can we get the looked at and fixed? Or some decent explanation as to wtf is going on here. More upsetting because that stupid lone Soviet AT unit ruined some of my plans.

[:(]


NOTE: the 2/3 units of LAH I used with the Mot Inf Reg.

LAH against AT - that's not that simple! [:-]

I was not there.

How was the weather? How was the terrain? As the troops were well supplied?
How were the values ​​for readiness, unit integrity, morale, entrenchment, and experience?
Many important questions.

LAH against AT - that's just not that simple!

Are you being serious? Hope not. But just in case you are trying to support this nonsense. It was clear weather and unit was in low mnt. Sure, mnt .. but I have one of the best formations send 2/3 of it's troops against a single AT unit with low exp and morale. Also, I bombed the troops - well lol in DC bombing is kinda of a joke as it rarely does much IMO.

LAH units had 66AP left (had used speed card on it previously). REMEMBER this was T1 and those 2 units of LAH had not attacked previously in the turn.

Either way, this unit would never had been able to accomplish what it did WITH ALL the parameters you now know. Maybe if I had send in a second rate German formation that had a low TOE%, the AT unit could have held it off. I have spend plenty of time researching the war in the east. I'd be happy at any time putting my knowledge up against anybody else on this forum.

It's not that big a deal for a new game like DCCB. I remember how many bugs were found in WitE that allowed tiny NKVD units of 1k men to hold up an entire PZ div. They eventually fixed them, so I'm hoping Vic can get this issues sorted out as well. Game needs to have some semblance of realism for the hard-core war gamers. It's not a fantasy game.

[aspqrz02]

I think the problem is that many people playing wargames, computer ones, at least, really see them as a slightly more difficult version of "Total War" and the level of unreality that you get in that sort of game.

You, on the other hand (and I, as well), obviously have a more historically grounded background ... have read widely, to boot ... and know most of the obvious things that simply couldn't have been done/have happened ... and probably know a fair few of the less obvious ones as well, and a few of the obscure ones (dunno about you, but I, personally, still find myself amazed at some of the things that have come out recently in the study of WW2, and the Eastern Front in particular) ... and, of course, it seems fairly obvious, have a more specific interest in the *military* side of things, rather than "merely" the historical (which is more or less my interests as well), and that will generally put you several cuts above even those who are well read historically, but don't have the military context/knowledge to understand the events fully.

Cut him a *little* slack [;)]

Phil

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side....

No casualties to either side? Sounds like LAH decided not to press the attack at all. Maybe they took a wrong turn and couldn't find the enemy? Very inconsiderate of the enemy to ruin your plans like that. [:'(]

But seriously, one failed attack hardly invalidates the whole combat system.

[James Ward]

I don't know about AT units but artillery was not meant to be in direct combat. These should be easy to win against using just a moderate amount of ground force.

[olivier34]

let's run some test. I will if I find some time. This AT unit has hold during 24 hours the LAH. Why not if a defensive card have been played on them and they had a week to fortified in this low mountain hex and they got lucky during the fight. I had one div stopped by an HQ unit and a few hundred men in a low mountain hex...I had play a card to boost the attack...

[aspqrz02]

AT is Artillery in reality.

As I noted elsewhere, I'd guess the problem is that Artillery unit personnel are modded as Infantry in the individual unit TO&Es.

Either there should be a separate troop type, much less well armed (which would, mainly, represent less well trained ... as you couldn't have them *actually* less well trained as, I would guess, that would affect the effectiveness of the artillery in the unit) ... much less well armed or the crew strength should be somehow subsumed in the number of tubes, and each tube loss would mean a loss of those men ... which, I suspect, may be difficult to mod.

But you are 99.99% right ... unsupported Artillery units attacked by *anyone* would be walkover in almost all cases.

Phil

[ComradeP]

The problem is probably that AT and artillery units have what comes down to a fairly substantial amount of infantry, which benefit greatly from the game's entrenchment system.

The current entrenchment system is somewhat odd, as even the auto entrenchment value can seriously reduce casualties or stop an attack.

I more or less stopped attacking most kinds of "weaker" Soviet units in my 1st Panzer Army game because they would often cause disproportionate losses whilst taking fairly few due to their auto-entrenchment after moving somewhere.

I've attacked artillery groups or AT units with an entire Panzer division or Wiking from multiple sides and they didn't retreat. And whereas the Soviet infantry units tend to panic with heavy losses on the follow-up attack (when they have no entrenchment), I had to attack an artillery group 3 times with an entire Panzer division during the same turn before it was destroyed.

Of course, the AI gets bonuses, but that bonuses is only documented as being 20% in combat and it isn't clear if it also applies on the defense.

The link between entrenchment and casualties could possibly use some improvement, as currently the casualties for non-entrenched units are (very) high whilst the casualties for entrenched units are usually (quite) low.

Start a 2nd battle of Kharkov game as the Axis, for example, and you'll see that even though the Soviets suffer fairly heavy losses when attacking dug in regiments, but that the follow-up attack often nearly wipes out the remaining infantry in your regiment.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just attacked a lone AT unit with 2/3 LAH (t1) with 80AP left after softening it up with some air. The battle result was no damage to either side....

No casualties to either side? Sounds like LAH decided not to press the attack at all. Maybe they took a wrong turn and couldn't find the enemy? Very inconsiderate of the enemy to ruin your plans like that. [:'(]

But seriously, one failed attack hardly invalidates the whole combat system.

That is the problem, it's not one failed attacked. This issue with lone AT and ARTY units conducting superman like defense feats is an ongoing theme I've been reading. So it's hardly just my game. I guessing some others may not realize the unhistorical nature of this issue given their knowledge of the war in the east. Which is fine and understandable. But I have issues with this modeling.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The problem is probably that AT and artillery units have what comes down to a fairly substantial amount of infantry, which benefit greatly from the game's entrenchment system.

The current entrenchment system is somewhat odd, as even the auto entrenchment value can seriously reduce casualties or stop an attack.

I more or less stopped attacking most kinds of "weaker" Soviet units in my 1st Panzer Army game because they would often cause disproportionate losses whilst taking fairly few due to their auto-entrenchment after moving somewhere.

I've attacked artillery groups or AT units with an entire Panzer division or Wiking from multiple sides and they didn't retreat. And whereas the Soviet infantry units tend to panic with heavy losses on the follow-up attack (when they have no entrenchment), I had to attack an artillery group 3 times with an entire Panzer division during the same turn before it was destroyed.

Of course, the AI gets bonuses, but that bonuses is only documented as being 20% in combat and it isn't clear if it also applies on the defense.

The link between entrenchment and casualties could possibly use some improvement, as currently the casualties for non-entrenched units are (very) high whilst the casualties for entrenched units are usually (quite) low.

Start a 2nd battle of Kharkov game as the Axis, for example, and you'll see that even though the Soviets suffer fairly heavy losses when attacking dug in regiments, but that the follow-up attack often nearly wipes out the remaining infantry in your regiment.

Yes, completely agree and really don't like that modeling at all. Why? Because it's nonsensical. [:-]

[bwheatley]

Other then neither side losing anything I'm not completely shocked.

Pre-attack bombardment


Attack


Unit after


Good experience (for a russian unit on t1 compared to some i have), decent morale and decent entrenchment coupled with low mountains (-50% to motorized).

I'd have expected someone to at least die on both sides.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

AT is Artillery in reality.

As I noted elsewhere, I'd guess the problem is that Artillery unit personnel are modded as Infantry in the individual unit TO&Es.

Either there should be a separate troop type, much less well armed (which would, mainly, represent less well trained ... as you couldn't have them *actually* less well trained as, I would guess, that would affect the effectiveness of the artillery in the unit) ... much less well armed or the crew strength should be somehow subsumed in the number of tubes, and each tube loss would mean a loss of those men ... which, I suspect, may be difficult to mod.

But you are 99.99% right ... unsupported Artillery units attacked by *anyone* would be walkover in almost all cases.

Phil

That's actually a pretty good idea about giving artillery units 2nd rate infantry. Or maybe cut the amount of soldiers in an AT formation.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The problem is probably that AT and artillery units have what comes down to a fairly substantial amount of infantry, which benefit greatly from the game's entrenchment system.

The current entrenchment system is somewhat odd, as even the auto entrenchment value can seriously reduce casualties or stop an attack.

I more or less stopped attacking most kinds of "weaker" Soviet units in my 1st Panzer Army game because they would often cause disproportionate losses whilst taking fairly few due to their auto-entrenchment after moving somewhere.

I've attacked artillery groups or AT units with an entire Panzer division or Wiking from multiple sides and they didn't retreat. And whereas the Soviet infantry units tend to panic with heavy losses on the follow-up attack (when they have no entrenchment), I had to attack an artillery group 3 times with an entire Panzer division during the same turn before it was destroyed.

Of course, the AI gets bonuses, but that bonuses is only documented as being 20% in combat and it isn't clear if it also applies on the defense.

The link between entrenchment and casualties could possibly use some improvement, as currently the casualties for non-entrenched units are (very) high whilst the casualties for entrenched units are usually (quite) low.

Start a 2nd battle of Kharkov game as the Axis, for example, and you'll see that even though the Soviets suffer fairly heavy losses when attacking dug in regiments, but that the follow-up attack often nearly wipes out the remaining infantry in your regiment.

Ya that's been the way the AT engine has been since the beginning. Once you get units entrenchment down and readiness down you really start the slaughter.

[bwheatley]

Just for complete clarify the infantry portion had even better entrenchment than the unit avg. Not great for mountains but 98 is not bad.

But no casualties is a little maddening. Used to drive me nuts in wite you'd attack with something and the attacker wouldn't lose a single troop. But again i can't see the attack details to see if everything was just misses or how many rounds the attack lasted.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

...But no casualties is a little maddening. Used to drive me nuts in wite you'd attack with something and the attacker wouldn't lose a single troop. But again i can't see the attack details to see if everything was just misses or how many rounds the attack lasted.

Yeah I would have expected a unit with 45 AT guns and infantry support, well dug in, with OK morale and in low mountains to have shredded quite a bit of that German armor trying to attack them. So again it looks more to me like the LAH just balked at attacking for some reason and that was the reason for no casualties. If this sort of 0 loss result happens a lot then maybe the combat results need to be tweaked a bit. But I would not have expected this unit to just roll over and die as some have suggested here. Many German accounts of the war have described how hard it was to root Soviet defenders out of well entrenched positions.

Edit - And note the very high integrity of that AT unit (94). It won't break until that drops to below 50 IIRC.

[alex0809]

I think it's reasonable that a very-well entrenched unit can hold off enemies of even 5 times its size or so, no question - it happened in reality, stories of horrendous casualties of Soviets when they charged defensive positions FRONTALLY are famous..
but I think that attacking an entrenched unit from even just two sides should VASTLY decrease the entrenchment bonus of the defenders. Right now, I think the concentric bonus is too low.

(I'm not talking about AT guns here, I don't have much military knowledge, so I just assumed that these 1000 infantry men in an artillery regiment represent 1000 regular soldiers that are meant to protect the guns, not the gun crews itself)

[Redmarkus5]

It's a fairly simple matter to mod the SFT types, add a new class of 2nd rate infantry and equip all the AT, Arty and HQ units with those.

Someone? I'm a bit too busy with my graphics mod ATM.