Urban terrain combat balance

[Stamb]

It would be nice to get some response from the Matrix staff if they will look into this or it is the same topic as German allies (which are useless, IMHO) and it will stay as it is.

[ShaggyHiK]

You cannot place your artillery in a city while defending a city, the buildings will block your fire sectors.

When placing artillery outside the city, these same buildings will interfere with the effective fire of your artillery, there will be inaccessible zones, and there will be windows of opportunity for enemy infantry inside the city, some side of the street will not be shot through, some buildings will interfere with the fire of your artillery due to the fact that they have your own troops..
Soviet infantry, due to its armament, is much better suited for urban battles. PPSh is a good solution, the lack of MP38 / 40 is a disadvantage of German industry, 120-160mm mortars are good, Germany had no such solutions. (This is also true if you look more broadly at the question of the efficiency in close combat of the Soviet side in the city).

For three or four million people in Berlin, 80 thousand defenders were not enough, a fairly clear example of the fact that if the city is occupied by an insufficient number of troops, then an offensive in it will be more effective than in swamps. Due to at least motorways available, while in the swamps each such road can be of great value.

The city itself is not a difficult terrain for warfare. It is not the ability to occupy buildings that plays a big role here, but the number of "combat bayonets".
In the German division, out of 16,000 combat personnel, there are only 8,000 people. The rest are rear services that do not carry combat value in the city.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

You cannot place your artillery in a city while defending a city, the buildings will block your fire sectors. When placing artillery outside the city, these same buildings will interfere with the effective fire of your artillery, there will be inaccessible zones, and there will be windows of opportunity for enemy infantry inside the city, some side of the street will not be shot through, some buildings will interfere with the fire of your artillery due to the fact that they have your own troops.

You dont place the artillery in the city center. We are talking about cities that are not surrounded here. So one can expect the artillery to be placed in position from which they can fire effectively. And the same conditions that affect the defender, will affect the attacker too. Once you commit your infantry in the city, your artillery wont be able to fire without the risk of hitting your own men.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
Soviet infantry, due to its armament, is much better suited for urban battles. PPSh is a good solution, the lack of MP38 / 40 is a disadvantage of German industry, 120-160mm mortars are good, Germany had no such solutions. (This is also true if you look more broadly at the question of the efficiency in close combat of the Soviet side in the city).

No. Stop with your insane Soviet bias. German troops in the late war were more than capable of conducting defensive operations inside cities. MP40 was not lacking and engineer troops/assault groups were armed properly when it came to defensive city fighting. Not to mention that the use of Panzerfausts by your standard rifleman made AFVs in such close quarter combat a lot more vulnerable. If you want to talk guns, the Germans had a far superior MG in the form of MG 34 and later MG 42. By the late war the Germans had the much more superior StG 44, the Soviets had nothing like it.

The Germans have 50mm, 80mm and 120mm mortars as well. Your point on efficiency is moot and based on pure Soviet propaganda.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
For three or four million people in Berlin, 80 thousand defenders were not enough, a fairly clear example of the fact that if the city is occupied by an insufficient number of troops, then an offensive in it will be more effective than in swamps. Due to at least motorways available, while in the swamps each such road can be of great value.

What are you talking about? Berlin was surrounded and the Reich was in complete chaos. Everything had broken down and there was no proper organized defense of the city. It was just a bunch of rag tag units trying to improvise a defense against an enemy that was superior to them in every possible way.

And even in such conditions, with the odds stacked so heavy against them, the Berlin garrison inflicted a lot of casualties on the attacking Soviets. Your point that attacking a swamp hex is more difficult that taking a fortified, properly defended city is ridiculous.

The fact that you believe that Berlin fell simply because there wasnt enough troops in the city shows your lack of understanding of that battle and the reason why the battle ended the way it did.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The city itself is not a difficult terrain for warfare.

Yes it is. EvK listed a number of ways that the defender can obstruct advancing paths and take a toll on the attacker. Like everything else you have said, this is just things you pull out of thin air and are not based on any proof or evidence.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

It is not the ability to occupy buildings that plays a big role here, but the number of "combat bayonets".
In the German division, out of 16,000 combat personnel, there are only 8,000 people. The rest are rear services that do not carry combat value in the city.

What does this have to do with anything??? Out of the 32.000 men in a Soviet Rifle Corps, 10.500 of them are part of rear services. So what now?

[loki100]

Xhoel

as far as I can see, Breslau is the outlier, ie an urban hex the Germans turned into a re-enaction of Stalingrad. All the others it seems that the Soviets clerared the city in 4-10 days (as ever a bit hard to sort out the preparatory fighting from the actual assault), so I'm not sure that carefully curating the historical record proves your case - all it shows is these battles were bloody and by mid-43 the Red Army was pretty well configured to conduct them.

As another direct assault, Vitebsk fell in days as part of Bagration, despite having been well prepared as a defensive bastion.

Your cited eg is a VG division and a cavalry division with 10,000 men, so about 1/3 is not combat elements, lacking heavy weapons and so on. Is the precise trade of losses unrealistic enough to sustain a wider argument - I can't see it.

Where the problem lies is that a successful defence triggers a rout due to disrupted (or worse) elements, this seems to be triggered by the number of defenders (something that is hard for the Germans to generate - but then till the late war city battles I'm not sure they ever did?), relative Soviet commitment (which has to be substantial) and the way the revised combat rules intersect with the way the combat routine works out in urban etc hexes. As in my eg above, in a city hex, it seems to play out exactly as we'd expect - I got bounced, I inflicted a lot of losses on the way out and my division is still in a reasonably decent state

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: loki100

Xhoel

as far as I can see, Breslau is the outlier, ie an urban hex the Germans turned into a re-enaction of Stalingrad. All the others it seems that the Soviets clerared the city in 4-10 days (as ever a bit hard to sort out the preparatory fighting from the actual assault), so I'm not sure that carefully curating the historical record proves your case - all it shows is these battles were bloody and by mid-43 the Red Army was pretty well configured to conduct them.

But its not though. If you completely ignore the sieges of the cities and the build up of forces needed to prepare for such attacks and only take the proper battle into account, then yes it is an outlier. But you cant simply reduce the battle to just that. If it took the Soviets till April to take Koenigsberg, you cant just say that the battle only took x days and compare that to a player taking the city by direct assault in game.

Here are other examples:

Königsberg
Posen
Danzig
Gdynia
Breslau
Küstrin
Kolberg

ORIGINAL: loki100
Your cited eg is a VG division and a cavalry division with 10,000 men, so about 1/3 is not combat elements, lacking heavy weapons and so on. Is the precise trade of losses unrealistic enough to sustain a wider argument - I can't see it.

The designation VG has nothing to do with the quality of the unit. I gave you its stats as well as the stats of the commander. They barely inflicted 2k losses on the Soviets, lost the hex and were both depleted by the combat. That is just an unrealistic trade off.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of better examples in the thread that you can pick apart if you wish to do so. I am providing an example that you usually dont find here or on the forums in general. Urban battle in 1945.

ORIGINAL: loki100
Where the problem lies is that a successful defence triggers a rout due to disrupted (or worse) elements, this seems to be triggered by the number of defenders (something that is hard for the Germans to generate - but then till the late war city battles I'm not sure they ever did?), relative Soviet commitment (which has to be substantial) and the way the revised combat rules intersect with the way the combat routine works out in urban etc hexes. As in my eg above, in a city hex, it seems to play out exactly as we'd expect - I got bounced, I inflicted a lot of losses on the way out and my division is still in a reasonably decent state

They didnt need to generate a high number of defenders, because urban combat is not simply a numbers game. The fact that this plays such a big role in the game is just wrong. And yes I agree with you, the unit getting routed should not be happening, they should conduct a fighting withdrawal and be done with it.

Your city example is nice. Now Im wondering why we cant have similar results for these Urban Hexes, but we see units getting completely decimated while not doing anything to the attacking forces. If Urban Combat was being resolved the way your city combat is, then I think 90% of the posters in this thread would be happy with the result.

[ShaggyHiK]

That is, you want to argue about how many PPSh were in the infantry department of the Red Army and how many MP38 / 40 were in the German?

Maybe we can immediately exclude the dispute about the fire of machine guns? As in a call of duty machine guns do not fire from a bunker.

In urban combat, it is the attacker who has the advantage in artillery firepower, due to the fact that the defender is tied to his position, which limits his firepower. In general, the trend of the Second World War and the main difference from the First World War is that the effectiveness of the offensive and counter-offensive have become much more effective than defensive actions, and even more so passive defense.

Based on the experience of WWII, there are now many military regulations that prescribe how to act. It all has some rules, I hope no need to explain why 1 to 3 is a win ratio?

Well, speaking of 120mm mortars - the Germans were actually forced to use Soviet captured ones, and so work out the production of their own. In urban conditions, the Soviet 120mm mortar made it possible to throw powerful mines almost to the next street through the house.

But these are all particulars, globally the Soviet army in urban battles was much better adapted. Both in relation to the personal armament of the infantryman, and in the armament of the squad. MG, the actual fact is that at least somehow the advantage of the Soviet branch over the German one did not.

And at the expense of the STG, at least take an interest in how and where and according to what principle they were sent to the troops.
I doubt that a reasonable decision was made on the German side to send most of the STG production to the northern sectors of the front, concentrating them in certain divisions.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Temporary fix - replace all urban/heavy urban with a cities?

doesn't then affect any ongoing game - the map is fixed when the scenario starts.

there is no quick fix around this so it will take time and supplied saves to balance again

what about changing urban/heavy urban (if it is affected by this) fighting intensity or whatever is causing such issues to the same as in cities?
It will not require new game and will affect ongoing saves.

[AlbertN]

I believe the main difference is that Stalingrad has never been truly cut off from reinforcements, while in general German 'bastions' were (or otherwise reinforcements were not exactly available).

The late war Soviet might was insane as well, they just had overwhelming numbers. So it's kind of normal that where they've an interest, they just invest and storm the place.
I am not sure the game mechanics have the Soviets bleed adequately if so - I only know of Germans and they surely suffer heavily in urban terrain when they attack, even against isolated Urban cities.

But frontal assaults should be plenty doable and even winnable. I consider Stalingrad a frontal assault and over time vs a constant flow of reinforcements the Germans seized the City.

I think the problem may be more related to stacking - when the Soviets are attacking - the 3 corps stack in 1 hex, multiplied by X hexes attacking an Urban hex - that may be game shattering.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

Maybe we can immediately exclude the dispute about the fire of machine guns? As in a call of duty machine guns do not fire from a bunker.

What are you even talking about? Half of the things you say is incoherent gibberish.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
But these are all particulars, globally the Soviet army in urban battles was much better adapted.

This is the conclusion to all your arguments, no matter the thread or the topic. Soviet Army is always the best at everything according to you. You literally spit out pure Soviet propaganda and cannot tell reality from fiction.

It is pointless to talk to you and I wont waste my time with back and forth arguments. Keep being a die hard believer that the Soviets were perfect at everything!

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I believe the main difference is that Stalingrad has never been truly cut off from reinforcements, while in general German 'bastions' were (or otherwise reinforcements were not exactly available).

The late war Soviet might was insane as well, they just had overwhelming numbers. So it's kind of normal that where they've an interest, they just invest and storm the place.
I am not sure the game mechanics have the Soviets bleed adequately if so - I only know of Germans and they surely suffer heavily in urban terrain when they attack, even against isolated Urban cities.

But frontal assaults should be plenty doable and even winnable. I consider Stalingrad a frontal assault and over time vs a constant flow of reinforcements the Germans seized the City.

I think the problem may be more related to stacking - when the Soviets are attacking - the 3 corps stack in 1 hex, multiplied by X hexes attacking an Urban hex - that may be game shattering.

I want to see how you take a fortified city, without 9-12 Soviet corps, limited to only 6-9-12 Soviet divisions.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

If the German army was well equipped to storm the city, then why did Sevastopol hold out until the age of 42?
Why did the Romanians wash themselves with blood in Odessa?
Why did Hitler, after Smolensk, prohibit a frontal assault on large cities?

Can you stop accusing me of Soviet propaganda and understand that the German army was not an ideal? And that their soldiers in their squads were disgustingly armed?

[AlbertN]

I've not said either to limit stacking to Divisions.

I'd not mind a game that has a stacking value for things as many paperboard games.
It is not different from the Command Capacity truly. A division can be worth 2, a corp can be worth 3, brigades / regiment 1 (That includes SU ones); battallions and HQs 0.
A hex can have 6 as stacking limit.

Also Shaggy - but that's just a matter of strategy. If a stronghold is too mighty, one encircles it or switches target.
Germans are not that many to be able to be strong -everywhere-.

[Zovs]

Budapest is also a good example, the siege lasted 50 days or 7 game turns and was costly to both sides (note I only have my ASL Festung Budapest and Panzer Campaigns Budapest to go off of).

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

If the German army was well equipped to storm the city, then why did Sevastopol hold out until the age of 42?

If you actually read about the Siege of Sevastopol you would understand why they held out till 42´. Its because of other external factors that forced the 11th Army to engage Soviet forces elsewhere.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
Why did the Romanians wash themselves with blood in Odessa?

So the Romanians are the same as the Wehrmacht now? You are a joke.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

Why did Hitler, after Smolensk, prohibit a frontal assault on large cities?

Citation needed.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
Can you stop accusing me of Soviet propaganda and understand that the German army was not an ideal?

I wont, because every single argument you make reflects that you have as much to do with history as a 4th grader.

I never said the German Army was ideal. I know and accept their weaknesses and mistakes whenever there is a thread. But when you throw accusations such as this: "And that their soldiers in their squads were disgustingly armed?" it shows me that you have no clue what you are talking about and only know what Soviet history teaches.

Keep believing your fairy tales.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I have not yet seen that a German player would not give up if everything starts to crumble with him.

Whereas victory in the game for Germany can be not only in winning in 41-42 years, but also in dragging out the game to 46 years.

And in this vein, I am an adherent of the fact that the German player is able to win due to the inability of the Soviet player to go to Berlin fast enough.

While the German players each time offer ways and mechanics that will allow them to spend this time as efficiently as possible, regardless of the real state of affairs, they want to see the Soviet Union as a wave of corpses that wash the Germans into Berlin.

[Jango32]

Surely we can discuss this without going for personal attacks/insults.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Surely we can discuss this without going for personal attacks/insults.

exactly, with the type of comments above, this thread is better locked before someone goes too far (& I think there are too many insults already from people who really should know better)

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: loki100


exactly, with the type of comments above, this thread is better locked before someone goes too far (& I think there are too many insults already from people who really should know better)

Dont fall off your high horse

Thread doesnt need to be locked as it kills the discussion that was productive before certain people chipped in. I wont be commenting anymore so no need to worry.

[cameron88]

You realize in virtually every battle on the Eastern front the Soviets took significantly more casualties compared to the Germans, especially when they were attacking. Urban battles are no different, yes the PPsH was a good sub machine gun, but do you know what is more effective then a sub machine gun? Coordination, training, and tactics, and the ability to inflict significantly more casualties in a fighting withdrawal, something that does not happen ingame in urban battles for Germany as it should.

I truly find it laughable reading through your posts that you actually believe the results ingame currently are how they should be, as if the Soviets were superior in urban combat, and because of equipment at that.

[EwaldvonKleist]

ORIGINAL: loki100

if you want a direct example, the Soviet assault on Zaporozhye in October 43 took 5 days of direct combat (as ever there is a lot of related fighting but trying to pin down the city assault phase), it wasn't surrounded so can be seen as a frontal assault

I'm not suggesting the current situation is right - see my post above. I think this is recent and is keying off the patch that altered the impact of indirect fire etc, that in turn seems to have set off this problem that is specific to urban hexes - all I am (strongly) suggesting is the solution is not a mass of special rules, its giving time to dig through the code with supplied examples to see if there is a more organic/natural solution - I realise thats less fun than chucking out random examples where two weak divisions are outnumbered 15-1 as the example?

I agree with you that there should not be a special solution. It needs to be fixed in the combat engine, but thats a task for the tests. The reason why we are constantly repeating us is because Joels comment was that it is WAD, but if so there is a design problem.

There are two issues:
1) The defenders rout too quickly even though final CV and the force ratio would result in them holding according to the final CV ratio.
In addition the same combination of defenders, attackers and fortifications would lead to a defensive success elsewhere even though urban terrain should favour the defender more than most others.

2) Loss ratios are too favourable for the attacker, both compared to history and to ingame combat in other terrain types.

Only the devs can fix this, ideally without special rules and by a fix of the combat engine and its parameters.
I also suggest that a unit should not rout due to turning unready during combat. WitE1 has the rule that unready units that have some CV left (and in the examples the units do, as they win the final CV contest) can't attack, but may stand next to enemy hexagons. Not sure why this has been changed here.

@Xhoel: Thanks. I hope one of the devs/producers reads this.