Soviet Low Loss Attacks

[AlbertN]

Hello,

I'm experiencing as German player an amount of 'abysmal to low' odds attacks.
If I've read the manual correctly these:

A) Eat supplies / ammos / (not sure of fuel).
B) Eat preparation.
C) Eat movement.
D) Add fatigue to the German unit.

Considering the insignificant amount of losses usually inflicted - at least by what I witnessed - what stops the Soviets to apply this delatory (and I perceive somehow wonky) tactic all across?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Hello,

I'm experiencing as German player an amount of 'abysmal to low' odds attacks.
If I've read the manual correctly these:

A) Eat supplies / ammos / (not sure of fuel).
B) Eat preparation.
C) Eat movement.
D) Add fatigue to the German unit.

Considering the insignificant amount of losses usually inflicted - at least by what I witnessed - what stops the Soviets to apply this delatory (and I perceive somehow wonky) tactic all across?
...

if they don't fail at such a long range the Soviets can run up horrific losses

1:11.3 makes little or no difference to your CPP or MP - see 22.1.3 and 23.2.2

its pretty exactly what the Soviets did, look at the Yelnya battles post Smolensk where they drove AGC nuts by fixing units in the front line that they wanted out and refitting.

but its a double edged sword, usually a failed Soviet attack with low exp/morale units can run up losses in the ,000s. There is a reason why most human Soviet players are cautious with this tactic

[AlbertN]

I am consistently running in attacks where the Soviets stop at distance and lose nothing pratically.

[Firewire9452]

That attack above was halted at 875 distance, which is quite far away. As a result, you’ll probably see far fewer elements that even had a chance to fire in the details screen and therefore fewer losses, especially if you were in close terrain (at least that’s my understanding of one effect of terrain—reducing the distance at which elements can begin to engage). To halt an attack early, a successful leadership check against initiative is required, which is quite hard for the Soviets to accomplish consistently. So this isn’t a full fight or even really representative. And iirc, your CPP loss will be reduced quite significantly because the odds were so far in your favor (iirc, 10:1 is one of several break points)—there’s a table that explains this in the manual. Personally, I love these attacks as a German because it typically means the Soviets are close enough to encircle and destroy. I believe—and maybe Loki or someone more familiar with the fatigue and supply/fuel consumption methods can confirm—that ammo usage and fatigue are incurred less in a halt attack versus a non-halt attack. Certainly that would make sense—less FPE should mean less actions during combat and therefore less fatigue and ammo consumed. Also, I’m not sure whether supply is used in combat—certainly ammo is. Iirc, supply is used to reduce fatigue during logistics. It would be easy to test with a single attack.

[loki100]

yes, less intense combat = less ammo/supply demands

also there are resupply checks during the movement phase so if you use up supply and are near to a depot with freight, you will probably replace it