WitE 2

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

"You cannot issue a "hold/take at all costs" order, which, assuming the units involved are compliant, is going to result in significantly higher loss than an encounter in terrain that either or both sides considers unessential to theiroperation or strategy."

18. An "all--out" effort by one side raises loss rates for both sides.

So the critical factor is not the terrain but the determination of the belligerents to hold or take it.

I agree but the question is whether adding more combat stances is worth the effort. I'd like to see a delay stance and even I am not sure that we can include this.

Is a deliberate attack not already an attempt to fight at all costs? You can always attack again if you want to and have MPs. Should static mode include an element of hold at all costs (no trucks to escape in)?

[morvael]

The problem is with defending side, they have no way to choose hold at all cost stance, nor delay stance.

[chaos45]

That city battle----well 2 weak hungarian divisions vs a massive soviet attacks...losses probably about right. Axis allied units in general not only were worse trained but usually had smaller/less supported ToE than German units.

Now if it was 2 German divisions vs that massive attack the losses should be much higher before the city is given up.

Also Pelton isnt the only person Ive played, just the first person I played lol---had several give up before getting to far into the game. An have one other game ongoing I havent been doing an AAR of on the boards---so my comments/suggestions arent purely from 1 game.

[chaos45]

Another caveat---difficult terrain does not explain urban terrain. City/urban terrain is a completely different animal for modern combat WW2 to current.

Losses should in general be much higher for urban combat. Ever modern military now is practicing for urban combat and its general knowledge amongst military professionals that urban combat is the most casualty intensive fighting one can become involved in because you cant use preponderance of firepower to best advantage.

It takes a squad on the ground to go into a place and usually that means casulaties. A squad can be wiped out in an instant in urban ops.

Also think your ratios/statistics are wrong----you are comparing only western type military operations. Soviet assaults in WW2 often esp in the Early war were more like WW1 assaults. The key problem is, is trying to juggle the system to the point they actually improved to more modern/western style assault tactics...basically by the end of 1942 or so.

its tough to balance over 4 years of game play and how much the soviets improved/germans declined in that time period.

[morvael]

Without teaching the AI when and how to use it (that's the hard part), I would imagine that it could work like this:

1) Every unit should have defensive stance attribute, that tells what tactics it will use when attacked:
- withdraw: unit falls back as soon as attacked (apply 80-90% reduction to firefight and post-combat losses; retreat regardless of final CV ratio; massively reduce chance to rout or shatter)
- delay (apply 50-70% reduction to firefight and post-combat losses; retreat at 1:1 final CV ratio; reduce chance to rout or shatter)
- hold (normal combat, just like now)
- hold at all cost (apply retreat-like post-combat losses to both sides; never retreat; slightly increase chance to rout or shatter - that's the only way possible to vacate the target hex after combat)
2) In case of units with different stances, use the strongest form of defense.
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".
4) For user-friendliness, it should be possible to alter this for all units under single HQ in one go, just like you can turn refit on or off. Also, in Commander's Report.

[RedLancer]

I am quoting Dupuy's work. The table below is his not mine. It is still less than Open[sic] terrain but greater than other close terrain types for the reasons that you explain.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Another caveat---difficult terrain does not explain urban terrain. City/urban terrain is a completely different animal for modern combat WW2 to current.

I think the difference stems from the fact that it's usually "a hold at all cost" defense when it comes to fighting for big cities. Also, most of the factors reducing casualties in combat in difficult terrain are caused by the fact that there is no way to logistically support it (guess you couldn't transport enough ammo on donkeys in a Monte Cassio-like terrain to support a Red Army-level artillery barrage), and no way to use heavy equipment like tanks (so only pure infantry forces are involved) - partially from terrain (tanks sink in swamps) and as well logistics (moving huge quantities of fuel, POL, spare parts on daily basis). That's why there was no Panzer Gruppe to take out Murmansk by an early strike from northern Norway and head south to Leningrad. It's also harder to move on foot (climb a mountain with 40kg of equipment and see how you feel) and coordinate attacks. Meanwhile although cities themselves are difficult terrain (especially when in ruins) there is usually an improved infrastructure around them (railway hubs, paved roads etc), that allows to feed troops into a meatgrinder without abandon. So that's why cities are perfect if you want to bathe in blood: desperate troops and commanders getting quite a lot of ammo to fight and a lot of cover (bear in mind lot of cover itself reduces casualites in modern battle), so it's hard to root them out. But not all cities were so contested, and there was a lot of featureless terrain that was heavier contested too. It all depends on the will and ability of both sides.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: morvael
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".

I wouldn't want this part of it. I don't see why an attacker should have knowledge of the defender's stance. Far too helpful and unrealistic. I'd rather that if you make a deliberate attack it's a chance you take.
As always with these things leader quality and personality type should have a strong influence on casualties and stances. My preference would be that some leaders are simply incapable of selecting certain stances.

[morvael]

Well, this was a simplification to avoid having the attacker to choose his stances (more work on the GUI, two variables instead of one). But it's certainly possible to add them in.
edit: at this scale you can think of it as initial forays towards enemy lines revealed him in to be in a serious mood.

It would be possible to make leader morale rolls for hold at all cost stance, and to make leader initiative rolls for withdraw/delay stances, and convert them to hold if failed.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


I agree but the question is whether adding more combat stances is worth the effort. I'd like to see a delay stance and even I am not sure that we can include this.

Is a deliberate attack not already an attempt to fight at all costs? You can always attack again if you want to and have MPs. Should static mode include an element of hold at all costs (no trucks to escape in)?

To my way of thinking, it would be worth the (your) effort if it raises casualties. It's also a micromanager's heaven so an option to leave it out might be good for other players. Sorry, that was cheeky. Now I've managed to exchange a few posts with someone who hasn't always been civil in the past, I might just help on the testing if there's a place for me.

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question. So the latter will be employed where significant resistance is known and intel indicates the defenders can't be brushed aside. Both work well for me as is. Deliberate attacks are distinct, then, from, let's call it a desperate attack, in which subordinates are ordered to take objectives regardless of casualties. Such an attack may not involve significantly higher MP expenditure, not sure. Ideally, there should be three categories each of attack/defence, in my view.

Although I take the point that difficult terrain reduces casualties relative to clear terrain given the same munitions expenditure/determination of each side to own it, difficult terrain is also often the object of the combatants' desires. A poor second choice might be to up casualties in difficult terrain.

Thinking further on variable MP expenditure for attacks, I think it's the best idea I've had all week. If units fail their admin checks and assemble late, you could have an option to postpone the attack, using MPs for the entire attack formation, or put in an understrength attack, maybe hoping the late units act as activated reserves.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: morvael
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".

I wouldn't want this part of it. I don't see why an attacker should have knowledge of the defender's stance. Far too helpful and unrealistic. I'd rather that if you make a deliberate attack it's a chance you take.
As always with these things leader quality and personality type should have a strong influence on casualties and stances.

+1

ORIGINAL: timmyab My preference would be that some leaders are simply incapable of selecting certain stances.

Can you elaborate that?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Without teaching the AI when and how to use it (that's the hard part), I would imagine that it could work like this:

1) Every unit should have defensive stance attribute, that tells what tactics it will use when attacked:
- withdraw: unit falls back as soon as attacked (apply 80-90% reduction to firefight and post-combat losses; retreat regardless of final CV ratio; massively reduce chance to rout or shatter)
- delay (apply 50-70% reduction to firefight and post-combat losses; retreat at 1:1 final CV ratio; reduce chance to rout or shatter)
- hold (normal combat, just like now)
- hold at all cost (apply retreat-like post-combat losses to both sides; never retreat; slightly increase chance to rout or shatter - that's the only way possible to vacate the target hex after combat)
2) In case of units with different stances, use the strongest form of defense.
3) When preparing to launch deliberate attack cursor icon should indicate if there are units in the target hex in "hold at all cost" stance, to warn attacking player that he will perform an "all-out assault".
4) For user-friendliness, it should be possible to alter this for all units under single HQ in one go, just like you can turn refit on or off. Also, in Commander's Report.

In an ideal world this is true and you know better than many the constraints both of the code and development resources(and I did get that extra ticket).

I think that delay and withdraw are the same thing. Doctrinally a delay is an operation where a force trades space for time in order to maintain combat power. I'm also wondering whether static should become hold at all costs and the demotorising aspects are moved alongside the motorising bit. Whilst combat stances are in discussion Refit needs to become a logistics function and not a combat stance unless refit reduces CV. At the moment refit is too much have your cake and eat it for me.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: morvael
It would be possible to make leader morale rolls for hold at all cost stance, and to make leader initiative rolls for withdraw/delay stances, and convert them to hold if failed.

That would be fine I guess. I was thinking more that leaders should directly affect casualty numbers in whatever stance they're in. Ideally I'd have a combination of unit experience, unit morale, unit stance and leader ratings affecting casualty numbers. Poorly led Soviet units in 41/42 would then have higher casualty rates as they should.

[KWG]

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question

Ive thought of them as being:

hasty - off the cuff, quick attack

deliberate - preplanned, coordinated attack

both using as much of the attacking force as possible.


Some way of having opposing adjacent units "Locked in combat" (higher attrition rates) therefore causing extra movement points to disengage and move.

[morvael]

Like I said, it's only a simplification for playability purposes and can be even explained by effects of scale. I agree that hasty/deliberate represent something other than stance, just like you said. I would offer the following attacking stances:
a) probe
b) normal attack
c) all-out assault
These could be connected with hasty/deliberate as normal. You can imagine aggressive German tactics of motorized trops being all-out assault in hasty mode, maximizing speed at the cost of higher casualties (unsustainable against determined defense, but good when pursuing an enemy. Deliberate probes would be meek Montgomery's tactics, aimed at conserving manpower at all cost.

And as before:
probe would reduce attacker's firepower and attacker's and defender's post-combat losses, and would require a 3:1 ratio to capture hex
all-out assault would increase attacker's and defender's post-combat lossesand would require a 1.5:1 ratio to capture hex (unless trumped by all-out defense)

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: KWG

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question

Ive thought of them as being:

hasty - off the cuff, quick attack

deliberate - preplanned, coordinated attack

both using as much of the attacking force as possible.

The MP expenditure is important here. Advancing units will not deploy if possible as it takes time to do so and then re-form. Usually, a division will advance in echelon with only the advanced elements engaging the enemy. Only when significant resistance is spotted or encountered will a decision be made to deploy second echelon units to provide muscle to an attack.

[KWG]

Would be great to mouse over a enemy unit and see a version the enemies' equipment per recon, fog of war.

There could be tigers and t34s everywhere or no where...until!

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Like I said, it's only a simplification for playability purposes and can be even explained by effects of scale. I agree that hasty/deliberate represent something other than stance, just like you said. I would offer the following attacking stances:
a) probe
b) normal attack
c) all-out assault
These could be connected with hasty/deliberate as normal. You can imagine aggressive German tactics of motorized trops being all-out assault in hasty mode, maximizing speed at the cost of higher casualties (unsustainable against determined defense, but good when pursuing an enemy. Deliberate probes would be meek Montgomery's tactics, aimed at conserving manpower at all cost.

And as before:
probe would reduce attacker's firepower and attacker's and defender's post-combat losses, and would require a 3:1 ratio to capture hex
all-out assault would increase attacker's and defender's post-combat lossesand would require a 1.5:1 ratio to capture hex (unless trumped by all-out defense)

That raises the issue of national characteristics/doctrine. I was thinking on this with regard to British early war doctrine in the Western Dessert. The British doctrine stipulated that armour would withdraw into a "night laager" regardless of whether or not it had won or lost the day's battle. The DAK would then go out and recover their disabled vehicles and demolish those of the Commonwealth. Demands a higher vehicle non-recovery rate for the Commonwealth.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
(and I did get that extra ticket)

People, keep your fingers crossed now [:)]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
I think that delay and withdraw are the same thing. Doctrinally a delay is an operation where a force trades space for time in order to maintain combat power. I'm also wondering whether static should become hold at all costs and the demotorising aspects are moved alongside the motorising bit. Whilst combat stances are in discussion Refit needs to become a logistics function and not a combat stance unless refit reduces CV. At the moment refit is too much have your cake and eat it for me.

I think the difference is that withdrawing begins as soon as the enemy is seen approaching. In delay you want to trade space for time, and accepts some light casualties as a result. But I don't know if any military uses the first tactic (keep your position, unless enemy appears on the horizon).

Theoretically German units at Stalingrad were in static mode, all horses were sent as far back as Rostov, to conserve "freight" space for fodder. At the same time they were attacking. So one has to reconsider also what static means. Correct term would be demotorization (and dehorsing?), imobbilizing them (unless they want to lose their artillery) but being able to fight on foot.

Yes, I think refit is too good. Should be reduced to units resting far away from the front. And really far away (20+) because of IGoYouGo side effects that we observed in WitE (withdrawing side suffers, pursuer benefits because he starts turn without contact, leading to snowballing effect on strength).

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: KWG

My understanding of hasty and deliberate attacks are, respectively, those carried out by an advanced guard and those which involve deployment of a larger portion of the unit in question

Ive thought of them as being:

hasty - off the cuff, quick attack

deliberate - preplanned, coordinated attack

both using as much of the attacking force as possible.

The MP expenditure is important here. Advancing units will not deploy if possible as it takes time to do so and then re-form. Usually, a division will advance in echelon with only the advanced elements engaging the enemy. Only when significant resistance is spotted or encountered will a decision be made to deploy second echelon units to provide muscle to an attack.

more precisely
both having at their command as much of the attacking force as possible.


True what you say, yet when viewing my hasty attacks its with more than just a advance guard of the unit