Why are artillery units so powerful when defending in a hex alone?

[BigDuke66]

Ok the amount of German Artillery explains the Allied losses but they don't seem so high that all attacking units would break off their attacks(especially as they seem all to be set to normal losses and not minimize losses), so why didn't they kill the lone German artillery unit?

[Lobster]

I'm thinking if the Neb unit had been given a way out one of the Recon units could have RBC it. Still, how could it resist even being surrounded and fighting to the last?

On the other hand, there are examples of units and individuals, some of them not even combat units, being attacked by overwhelming forces and winning the day. There are also examples of units or individuals attacking against huge odds and winning the day.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/korean ... d-him.html

[Shadrach]

Sure, obviously if I opened up the encirclement to allow it to retreat, it would mean less losses. But that's kind of beside the point isn't it? [:'(]

That's another thing in this game I think is not well enough explained. There seems to be no concept of surrender, and not sure if units will always fight to the last unless having the option for retreat? I know they "evaporate" but does this mean every single squad/equipment has to be engaged and destroyed first? I know if a unit is forced to retreat and has nowhere to go, it will evaporate, but there is no "surrender" as such, and squads/equipment will return to the pool I think?

After all, not all units are SS fanatics, and being surrounded and outnumbered would lead to a surrender in most cases. And obviously there are exceptions, highly motivated units in excellent positions and with enough supplies can hold out for a long time.

[Zovs]

I've always viewed evaporation as the concept of surrendering and in some case outright destruction.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

Sure, obviously if I opened up the encirclement to allow it to retreat, it would mean less losses. But that's kind of beside the point isn't it? [:'(]

That's another thing in this game I think is not well enough explained. There seems to be no concept of surrender, and not sure if units will always fight to the last unless having the option for retreat? I know they "evaporate" but does this mean every single squad/equipment has to be engaged and destroyed first? I know if a unit is forced to retreat and has nowhere to go, it will evaporate, but there is no "surrender" as such, and squads/equipment will return to the pool I think?

After all, not all units are SS fanatics, and being surrounded and outnumbered would lead to a surrender in most cases. And obviously there are exceptions, highly motivated units in excellent positions and with enough supplies can hold out for a long time.

The point was, there are ways around what happened. If you completely surround a unit and deny a path of retreat you are going to incur more casualties regardless the outcome. Unless it's a weakened unit it's not a good idea because it will cost you more in the long run.

When a unit evaporates it loses cohesion and cannot function as a combat unit. I imagine much of it is surrender. Some of it probably turns into stragglers that make their way back to friendly lines. That's probably the 50% the manual mentions. If the unit is out of supply nothing goes to the pool. That certainly sounds like the whole thing surrenders or dies.

What really irritates me is the equipment that goes back to the pool. If the enemy takes the battlefield how do I recover tanks that are damaged? If I play with the new over extended rules I can be 400km behind enemy lines yet somehow all of my lost equipment makes it's way back to the pool because I have a line of communications. Maybe the Red Cross tow truck is given free passage. Dunno. That's a long way to push a tank.

One more thing. I've played war games for 60 years. I have seen things like the nebel unit resisting happen in any type of war game. It also happens in the real world. If it becomes something that is not rare then there is a problem.

[Curtis Lemay]

Another factor here is the Attrition Divider = 56. So losses accumulate 5.6 times slower than normal.

[Shadrach]

Well, I don't know. It's surely more than a fluke, as it happens with all the Nebelwerfer units in the Goodwood 44 scenario. I noticed it when playing, they were extremely hard to take out compared to what I thought they'd be. Especially if in a stack with several of them... So I figure it *might* be related to what Icedawg is seeing in the Ardennes scenario.

You're free to experiment yourself of course, if you have the interest. Goodwood '44.
I'm attaching the save I used to test this, just got some units to surround the closest one.

[rhinobones]

Another factor here is the Attrition Divider = 56. So losses accumulate 5.6 times slower than normal.

Interesting, first hard number I’ve ever heard of a value for Attrition Divider adjustments. I believe the default Attrition Divider value is 10, this scenario value is 56. Please give the math that developers can use that shows how 56 reduces (slows) losses by 5.6 times of normal.

Would be good to define “normal” and logic, so that developers have a baseline for the 5.6 reduction.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Another factor here is the Attrition Divider = 56. So losses accumulate 5.6 times slower than normal.

Interesting, first hard number I’ve ever heard of a value for Attrition Divider adjustments. I believe the default Attrition Divider value is 10, this scenario value is 56. Please give the math that developers can use that shows how 56 reduces (slows) losses by 5.6 times of normal.

Would be good to define “normal” and logic, so that developers have a baseline for the 5.6 reduction.

Regards, RhinoBones

Losses = Raw Losses X 10 / Attrition Divider.

[sPzAbt653]

I guess for old-timers they all know this and just think it's obvious, the rest of us have to guess?

I guess I am an old-timer but I don't know any of this, and I never use the Combat Planner, never have in 17 years of TOAW. Not that that means anything, just saying.

So I grabbed your save file and canceled the attack you had set up and then Overran the defender on the first round [:)]

[sPzAbt653]

Next I again canceled your attacks, ignored the opportunity to Overrun, and set up my own attacks. The result was that the defender evaporated halfway thru the six-hour turn. Three hours to remove the threat!

I can see why some would look at the situation and cry foul over an artillery unit being so surrounded and out numbered putting up a good fight, but overall I see nothing that I think should cause concern.

I'll add that I've played the heck out of both Bulge 44 and Goodwood and at times both scenarios can cause aggravation, but again nothing that seems like an issue with the game or scenario.

[sPzAbt653]

Here is my Combat Planner for the first round attack I made. Doesn't mean anything to me, but maybe it helps somebody else. Sometimes I think that it is best in a situation like this to attack with a few units at minimal losses in order to gauge what is going on. Sometimes attacking with a bunch of units from all directions doesn't accomplish much and can burn a bunch of rounds.

[Shadrach]

I was unable to trigger an overrun with the mechanised unit when I tried, it seems kind of random at times when you can or can't do so. Doing a bombard at first round is always a good idea to reduce losses, and I usually would do so. In this instance the whole point, from the first post in the thread, was to show that attacking a single artillery support unit would cause excess losses to the attacker.

You still lost an ~7% for the three rounds used for the attacks, so I suspect your losses would still have been in the 30+ squads range. So that's still 300+ men, and equipment, to take out a dozen unguided rocket launchers who should be incapable of actually doing much damage in such a situation.

My theory is that the game uses the Anti-personnel strength of the Nw. units to calculate the AP value of the defender, even if these units should not be capable of doing direct fire at an attacking force like that. I think that's what also happens with other artillery units as reported in the first post of this thread by Icedawg.

Isn't there a flag to tell if a unit is capable of direct fire or not?

[Zovs]

In reality all units are capable of direct fire. An artillery unit of 12 tubes still has two (albeit extreme options) in the real world and even in the game. The 12 or so tubes are manned by 4 to 12 men (sometimes more) each and there have been many accounts when brave artillery men trained their guns over open sights, they usually get overrun, but still inflict damage.

Also in the game I dont' think all losses are KIA, they are also WIA and POW.

[cathar1244]

Isn't there a flag to tell if a unit is capable of direct fire or not?

More like there is an absence of such a flag.

There is a flag value for equipment that can conduct ranged fire, which for TOAW, means indirect fire farther than an adjacent hex.

On the defense strength of the rocket launchers. Goodwood has a modified equipment file. The ranges of the Nebelwerfer units have been increased (probably to reflect more accurately their actual range), but the range extension affected the defense strength of the 150mm NW (increased from 1 to 2), and the 210mm NW (increased from 1 to 3).

This defense strength is auto-generated by TOAW for guns, and is determined by the range of the artillery piece.

My take, the defense strength of "1", like that of light guns, is probably more accurate for Nebelwerfers, but that can only be changed if one reduces their range beyond what is now shown in the Goodwood equipment file. Modifying the DF rating in the equipment file won't help because this is an auto-generated value.

That noted, the increase in defense strength may be a wash in this situation (or not, depending on terrain, supply, etc.)

Cheers

[Lobster]

The range in the scenario is 15km. This is twice the range it should be.

Chamberlain, Peter (1975). Mortars and rockets. Gander, Terry. New York: Arco Pub. Co. pp. 36–37. ISBN 0668038179. OCLC 2067459.

Germany's Rocket and Recoilless Weapons from the U.S. Intelligence Bulletin, March 1945

15 cm Nebelwerfer 41, Catalog of Enemy Ordnance, 1945.

http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/German%20an ... eapons.pdf (page 7 shows a 8cm HEAT round that I find of great interest mainly because it looks so much like HEAT rounds of more modern armies)

[sPzAbt653]

So that's still 300+ men, and equipment, to take out a dozen unguided rocket launchers who should be incapable of actually doing much damage in such a situation.

But you are not accounting for Supporting Fire [which could be bringing down a lot of artillery on a lot of the enemy which is bunched together]. Additionally I would agree with Don that most if not all 'indirect' fire weapons could still be fired directly when threatened at close range [and especially when no retreat was possible].

Goodwood is an older design from when the 1km scale was not available, so if you try to analyze some of the stats at face value you will fail.

[gliz2]

I don't seem to follow the logic.

It's better to leave them doors open for defender to minimize attacker losses, is that what you guys are saying?
An entrenched artillery cannot easily change it's position and being surrounded means actually higher losses for the defender and higher probability of being overrun and of surrender.

The "back-to-the-pool" rules are extremely strange. Yes some units were able to retrieve "lost" equipment but on a rare occasions and mostly only when having operational initiative.
Example are the Sch.Pz.Bn. which had hihg recovery rates up to 1944.

Still how on earth lost equipment magicaly is moved to the pool from the enemy is beyond me?

[Zovs]

All war games are abstraction to some degree and level, both computerized and paper war games.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

The "back-to-the-pool" rules are extremely strange. Yes some units were able to retrieve "lost" equipment but on a rare occasions and mostly only when having operational initiative.
Example are the Sch.Pz.Bn. which had hihg recovery rates up to 1944.

Still how on earth lost equipment magicaly is moved to the pool from the enemy is beyond me?

Losses are not just Killed, Wounded, and Captured. Some are just scattered by the chaos of the battle. They are ineffective for a while, but will eventually be rounded up and returned to action.