Soviet cavalry divisions and immortal retreats

[Jango32]

Soviet cavalry in WitE 2 is the real super weapon both in SP and PvP. They are not divisional sized yet they can flip nearby hexes like divisions (meanwhile the larger Axis cavalry brigades have brigade rules), cheap to build, are almost guaranteed to have at least 20 MPs, have a high cap on the number that can be raised in 1941 and just do not take losses. They are just a tier below airborne brigades in terms of immortality and usefulness in PvP.

These are the results of a 91 CPP Panzer division, the ones with overflowing final CV odds against a morale 25 setting for the Soviet AI, fighting against such a super weapon in a clear hex...

The last attack is also a deliberate attack. Note that because of how CPP rules work, this division is left with 45 CPP - effectively it needs to rest a full turn to get about 25 CPP back from the spent SMPs.

Note that even when they are severely understrength and considered unready, they are just as capable to gain MPs and flip hexes like divisions in PvP. Meanwhile, Axis minor cavalry brigades melt like you would expect. So I have to ask, what makes them so capable of absorbing damage like it's nothing?

[Stamb]

welcome to the Axis moaners club

and seriously speaking its an absurd
i also like when you lose more units in deliberate attack in comparison with a hasty one

[Jango32]

I've done another test this time followed by a pursuing attack done by the same Panzer division. 100 morale this time.

[loki100]

as ever, if you want something changed then 2 things really increase the chance of it being looked at.

a) saves
b) a fairly precise statement of why you think those battles are wrong (at the level of game mechanics) and the change you'd like to see.

As a general point, there is resistance to opening up the combat engine simply as it may trigger other problems, so its more likely the more precise you are.

as to this: "cheap to build" is a bit of a stretch as a claim. Pretty much the only time the Soviet player will have less cavalry divisions on map than the build limit is 1941. At that stage they cost 8 AP each, I'd be pretty relaxed if my Soviet opponent was spending AP on them at that stage. I guess they could use their late 1941 AP bonus for them at that stage. By 1942, only if someone is doing the exploit of building cavalry corps and breaking them down and then building another. If they are doing that, well ...

[Jango32]

You don't need saves for this - there are no exceptional circumstances that are unique to this campaign. Every thread opened up like this can be reproduced the moment you reach turn 2 of the 1941 GC scenario. The only exception to that was Panzer divisions melting in combat against Soviet tank/mechanized divisions, that could be reproduced on turn 1. But I'll entertain the need to provide saves once more.

I've said why these battles are wrong. These battles are wrong at the level of game mechanics because larger forces (Axis minors) with comparable (national) morale and comparable/higher TOE element experience consistently melt in combat when they get attacked. There are no endless, low losses retreats as it happens with Soviet cavalry "divisions" and Soviet airborne brigades. Furthermore attacking other Soviet formations (tank divisions, mechanized divisions, rifle divisions and so on) with almost max CPP Panzer divisions in 1941 melts them in combat with high losses and more often than not leading to routs in clear terrain hexes.

Yet cavalry divisions just happily retreat away with low losses on low quality TOE elements while potentially inflicting not negligible losses on higher quality elements of the attacking division - a fully motorized attacking division which can catch the retreating non-motorized enemy in a clear terrain hex in a real/simulated environment.

[loki100]

I'm sure the saves will help, it makes it far easier for Joel to point Pavel or Gary to the exact instance that needs to be checked - saves time and thus improves the chance of consideration.

The wider issue is there is no secret mechanism that tells the game engine to spare Soviet cavalry formations. So if it is (a) unintended (and the usual reminder here - just because you don't like it is not the same as it being wrong), and (b) signficant then its feasible to review. But its happening due to routines in the generic combat code which is not the easiest thing to change. Now there maybe a bug or a routine not kicking in and that is easy (ish) to resolve.

Equally if it needs to be addressed, then maybe configuring these as brigades with the rules that invokes is a solution.

No idea as to which applies, but saves and a direct formulation really help.

Roger

[AlbertN]

On the note of 'Need Save' I am with Jango here - when there is a perceived problem that is replicable at any given time.

A matter is to introduce a problem that is present 'If from this specific hex, in that condition, I do this as specific action in this sequence...'
This needs a save.

If it is something that at any given time or turn introduces itself as situation ... it's so generic no real save is needed.

Attitude wise the 'Need save' when something repeats over and over any turn ... just sounds plainly wrong.

But yes - the perception of 'Immortal' Soviet (specific) units is there; and as well the perception of the useless (despite Elite) Axis cavalry brigades.

[loki100]

'needs save' simply makes it possible for two of three very busy people to engage with the issue being identified, its not a barrier but it really helps

Really its up to the community on this.

[Stamb]

to be fair in a game vs fracas where i am Soviets i attacked Hungarian and Romanian cav brigades and they just retreated...
2-3 times in a row without a route

which considering well known Axis allies capabilities was a shock for me

maybe it is smth to do that those units are on the horses which allows them to disengage more easily?

[Stamb]

also i think its fine that they retreat vs hasty attacks

it is a 50% CPP loss which is a game killer

[Hardradi]

I agree with the comments, they are near immortal and soak up your CPP.

The other comment I would make is as you hit them they tend to be within range to launch back into your lines on your opponents turn. They either cut you off or reduce your CPP gain by flipping hexes or staying adjacent. They usually have a low TOE so its not a sacrifice by your opponent. Trying to isolate them is a waste of time and CPP for the units involved.

Each Hasty attack also causes 1 combat delay in the given hex.

They are also great at recon in force, hitting your units with a hasty attack so that your opponent can figure out how many troops they need to mass to retreat or rout the same unit.

A mentioned above, they have low TOEs, miraculously your opponent can line up a dozen of these divisions all with <3000 men.

Can someone clarify how many you can build?

[Stamb]

74, without abuse

1.png (88.45 KiB) Viewed 1464 times

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I agree with the comments, they are near immortal and soak up your CPP.

The other comment I would make is as you hit them they tend to be within range to launch back into your lines on your opponents turn. They either cut you off or reduce your CPP gain by flipping hexes or staying adjacent. They usually have a low TOE so its not a sacrifice by your opponent. Trying to isolate them is a waste of time and CPP for the units involved.

Each Hasty attack also causes 1 combat delay in the given hex.

They are also great at recon in force, hitting your units with a hasty attack so that your opponent can figure out how many troops they need to mass to retreat or rout the same unit.

A mentioned above, they have low TOEs, miraculously your opponent can line up a dozen of these divisions all with <3000 men.

Can someone clarify how many you can build?

My 2c on this...

In terms of CPP my feeling would be to leave things as they are for a while to give Axis players the chance to properly get their head round the CPP rules. As loki suggested above one possible approach as an Axis player in the early turns is to use your units who already have low CPP to clear up the 'nuisance' units that the opponent puts in front of their MLR. I think that is a more interesting dynamic than moving to a situation where you simply want to have every unit with the highest possible CCPs.

In terms of combat delay a hasty attack with odds better than 10:1 will only add delay if there is another unit adjacent to the battle hex. So with good attack sequencing by the axis player this should not be an issue (if we are just talking about 'sacrificial' units).

In terms of 'recon in force' my suggestion would be that a unit that attacks and loses by a certain ratio should lose the rest of its MPs.

The TOE question is the biggest one I think needs to be looked at. Maybe there needs to be a rule preventing units under a certain TOE% from entering/converting enemy hexes?

[Beethoven1]

If Axis minor cav performs worse in combat than Soviet cav with equivalent morale etc, part of the explanation might possibly be supply. Axis minor units are often on supply priority 2 or so, whereas Soviet units are often on 4.

[Hardradi]

In terms of CPP my feeling would be to leave things as they are for a while to give Axis players the chance to properly get their head round the CPP rules. As loki suggested above one possible approach as an Axis player in the early turns is to use your units who already have low CPP to clear up the 'nuisance' units that the opponent puts in front of their MLR. I think that is a more interesting dynamic than moving to a situation where you simply want to have every unit with the highest possible CCPs.

I dont think having every unit with the highest CPP is an option as Axis in 1941 unless you stop every second turn.

This is worth a thought but its not as simple as it sounds. To put it into context we are not talking about the first few turns where you have high MPs.

Having tried this against a 12 hex long wall of cavalry I didnt find it very effective. I only got about 2 hasty's with each Infantry Division. They were left with 0 CPP and very high fatigue. They are also stuck in a converted hex with 0 to 2 movement left. Also, if you dont keep them in formation any stray from the herd can be cut off in your opponents turn. I ended up using 8 infantry divisions to clear that 12 hex wall because of the retreats. Four of the twelve cavalry divisions are still out in front of me. They are well out of range of any other infantry. This is clear weather in clear terrain as well.

I suspect there was another wall of cavalry behind the first one with at least another 6 cavalry.

In terms of combat delay a hasty attack with odds better than 10:1 will only add delay if there is another unit adjacent to the battle hex. So with good attack sequencing by the axis player this should not be an issue (if we are just talking about 'sacrificial' units).

Yes, I could probably be more careful with that but there are retreats and units your recon misses.

In terms of 'recon in force' my suggestion would be that a unit that attacks and loses by a certain ratio should lose the rest of its MPs.

The TOE question is the biggest one I think needs to be looked at. Maybe there needs to be a rule preventing units under a certain TOE% from entering/converting enemy hexes?

Both of these are good idea's.

[ElizabethWizard]

Yeah it's really weird that guys on horses are hard to pin down and kill. What gives them all that tactical and strategic manueverability?

[Mehring]

Can't believe people are actually complaining about casualty rates 10:1+ in their own favour.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wik ... iet_Union)

[exalted]

The real problem isn't loses is it.

Its just that the pzDiv in the first few post probably should loose quite a bit less prep than it does, it should gain quite a bit less fatigue than it will gain and the attack should cost less MP against a weak unit with a stronger unit, then I haven't studied supplies/ammo/fuel as much but I expect it looses way too much of those as well in such an engagement. Giving us about 6 factors where you are overcharged for basically brushing aside a small unit that offers no feasible resistance.

Basically there isn't much problem with the combat engine, it is the resources being drained by what is basically soviets running away from battle that is the problem.

[Jeff_Ahl]

The real problem isn't loses is it.

Its just that the pzDiv in the first few post probably should loose quite a bit less prep than it does, it should gain quite a bit less fatigue than it will gain and the attack should cost less MP against a weak unit with a stronger unit, then I haven't studied supplies/ammo/fuel as much but I expect it looses way too much of those as well in such an engagement. Giving us about 6 factors where you are overcharged for basically brushing aside a small unit that offers no feasible resistance.

Basically there isn't much problem with the combat engine, it is the resources being drained by what is basically soviets running away from battle that is the problem.

Hear, hear!

[Mehring]

You could make the same case for hasty vs deliberate attacks, which cost equal cpp while supposedly the former deploys only a fraction of the attacking unit to engage. The value of cavalry specifically or any unit which could be construed as fighting a rear guard action, is irrelevant. As is, Soviet units lose a phenomenal amount of personnel and equipment at minuscule cost to the Germans while my example above shows the ability of these weak formations to survive weeks or months in contact and in retreat.