lets talk about soviet cavalry again

[DesertedFox]

The issue is that the three entrenched infantry divisions now lose CPP and will become fatigued. You are looking at just losses.

CPP loss on the defense ONLY occurs if the defenders are forced to retreat. There could be residual CPP loss depending on the final odds of the attack as described in the table in the manual 22.1.3, due to reduced movement in the following turn. If the odds are less than 1:10 there will be no movement loss or CPP loss at all.
Therefore in the example given there was no CPP loss at all.

Movement and potential CPP loss will only happen at higher odds which is not part of the OP's "complaint".

There were 199 disruptions, damaged and destroyed guns, and this translates to three weakened German infantry divisions.

How badly were they weakened? One %, 10% 99%. I know it's a strange coincidence, but when a unit takes losses, permanent or damaged, it's weakened. Your rhetoric is strongly suggesting they were crippled when in fact they were not. What caused most of the damage/disruption? Let me guess, the aircraft, not the cav unit.

The Germans in this battle had more cavalry squads than the unready Soviet cavalry division, 61x more guns, armoured cars. The cavalry "division" should've been utterly destroyed, but instead is sat next to three German infantry divisions causing further fatigue and CPP loss, and the Germans now need to slap it and take even further CPP loss / Fatigue.

Well, Axis units do hasty/reconnaissance in force attacks in force and a strong Russian Mech or armored unit doesn't get the opportunity to "utterly destroy" the Axis unit. It's an I Go U Go system, the attacker has the option of breaking off any attack, the defender has no option to continue the combat. The defender gets to enjoy the benefits of terrain and entrenchment bonuses in combat. Or are you suggesting they incorporate a rule for the AXIS to get free shots after the attack has been called off? Well that seems fair.

but instead is sat next to three German infantry divisions causing further fatigue and CPP loss

OMG, yes we need to introduce a house rule that Russian units in 1941 cannot end their turn next to Axis units as this will cause said damage/disruption to Axis units.

At a cost of 24 level bombers, my Cavalry have reduced the combat capability of these three divisions drastically.

Well, that's your opinion, I see the game WaD. The Devs are much smarter than me and if I can pick the pro-Axis suggestions in this thread to pieces they could do an even better job except they are working on "real" issues.

[Stamb]

Soaking attacks and cavalry being used as recon and directing air attacks, plenty of reason for some circle-jerk discord group to harass and abuse loki...

there was not a single evidence of it, but i see that we are back again to the point where players can not discuss game on the forum?


FredCat

Why you would not use your main account and instead is using sock puppet?

[Stamb]

DesertedFox

you are looking at a wrong table
table with CPP is

23.2.2. Losing Combat Preparation Points

if a unit is attacked and forced to retreat it will lose all its CPP. If it is attacked and
the attack fails the lost CPP will vary according to the final odds and the intensity of
the attack:
 if the odds were >=1.5 to 1, then the defender will lose half their CPP;
 if the final odds were >=1 to 1, the defender will lose one quarter of their
CPP;
 if the final odds were less than 1-1 the defender will lose 10% of their
CPP.

so defenders lose 10% from such attacks

[ToxicThug11]

so basically your group have found a new bit of systems abuse and want ... well what?

the whole trick is purely due to how the game systems work, its got nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of Soviet cavalry, its got nothing to do with the demands in the other thread for a rework of a combat engine.

there probably is no way to stop it via the rules as its simply a product of those who sit down and work out how to break the game to their temporary advantage.

Seriously this has nothing to do with Soviet Cavalry, its got everything to do with the mindset of a small sub-section of the MP community.

Hi and welcome to the forum Fredcat. You're reading into my post a bit too much.

All I'm saying is that a 2,000 man unready cavalry division should not trade evenly with three entrenched German infantry divisions. There are no "system abuse", this is a hasty attack which is in the realms of normal gameplay.

Thanks

[DesertedFox]

DesertedFox

you are looking at a wrong table
table with CPP is

23.2.2. Losing Combat Preparation Points

if a unit is attacked and forced to retreat it will lose all its CPP. If it is attacked and
the attack fails the lost CPP will vary according to the final odds and the intensity of
the attack:
 if the odds were >=1.5 to 1, then the defender will lose half their CPP;
 if the final odds were >=1 to 1, the defender will lose one quarter of their
CPP;
 if the final odds were less than 1-1 the defender will lose 10% of their
CPP.

so defenders lose 10% from such attacks

I stand corrected on this point alone.

I think the odds for CPP loss should have some correlation to the movement odds table I referred to and % lost.

That would mean at odds of less than 1:10 there would be no CPP loss.

I certainly wouldn't do such attacks purely for CPP loss to the defender. That could be abused by 5 or more cav attacks against a 3 stack of panzer divs for example with rather unrealistic consequences.

As for the casualties etc, they are well within reason, imho.

[ToxicThug11]

I stand corrected on this point alone.

I think the odds for CPP loss should have some correlation to the movement odds table I referred to and % lost.

That would mean at odds of less than 1:10 there would be no CPP loss.

I certainly wouldn't do such attacks purely for CPP loss to the defender. That could be abused by 5 or more cav attacks against a 3 stack of panzer divs for example with rather unrealistic consequences.

As for the casualties etc, they are well within reason, imho.

Such tactics are an abuse, because there is no way a depleted cavalry division could cause three divisions to each lose 10% combat effectiveness + fatigue + material lost. I'm glad we are getting somewhere now.

So the issue is, these unready units can cause a 10% loss in combat effectiveness with a single hasty attack.

These German infantry divisions each have about 10 CV. So 30 offensive CV in total. Assuming that any offensive attack will drain CPP by 10%, we can assume about a 1-3 Offensive CV drop, depending on CPP levels. This is before we take into account fatigue and material losses, supply and ammo losses.

So to recap, a 0.3 CV Cavalry Division has caused a drop in combat effectiveness of about 10% + fatigue + material loss.
Without using emotionally charged language like "system abuse" (hasty attacks are part of the game), please try to explain how this could ever be achieved in real life by an unready formation.

I would also like to point out that the Cavalry Division I used in this attack was nearly completely fatigued with no combat preparation of its own, yet managed to escape pretty much unharmed despite being outnumbered 61:1 in guns and 90:1 in men. (Half of the 2000 men in the Cavalry Division are support, labourers).

This is just the most extreme example, but you can see there is clearly something wrong here. The same effects can be caused with a small airborne brigade or even an NKVD detachment. A poorly trained Leningrad militia division can achieve the exact same effects.

[ElizabethWizard]

Such tactics are an abuse, because there is no way a depleted cavalry division could cause three divisions to each lose 10% combat effectiveness + fatigue + material lost. I'm glad we are getting somewhere now.

Again, you're like, ignoring the 200+ bbrs that flew overhead?

I would agree that CPP losses can be exploited and can be problematic, but please stop saying that it was just the cav. The cav spotted for a fleet of airplanes that dropped tons of bombs on the enemy positions.

I would also like to point out that the Cavalry Division I used in this attack was nearly completely fatigued with no combat preparation of its own, yet managed to escape pretty much unharmed despite being outnumbered 61:1 in guns and 90:1 in men. (Half of the 2000 men in the Cavalry Division are support, labourers).

That makes sense to me. If I were in command of the cavalry division, I would use small squads that are too mobile for the enemy artillery to effectively fire upon to slip into positions where they could spot for the planes. I would *very specifically* order my squads to withdraw as soon as they faced any resistance and report the position. In other words: my cav would not *actually* fight in the battle. That's not what I'm using it for. I'm using it to probe the lines and find out where specifically in the 175 square mile hex the enemy's positions are, since they are likely not simply bivouacked in parade formation.

You seem to be envisioning 1k cavalry doing the charge of the light brigade 5 times. The cavalry can simply not do that.

[Zebtucker12]

This is a ww2 cavalry divison not a modern commando unit Elisa. Charge of the light brigade would be closer to reality user Hanny posted this on the mod discord.


44th Mongolian Cav Division attacked the German 106th ID at Musino, the whole thing was over in under an hour.

Summary losses of horses of the Division from Nov.16 to Dec.21: 1830 dead, 1471 missing. 3595 in total.
https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=132635221

And soldiers in the same period: 3299 in total.
https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=132635220

No German losses arising from its attacks, as Art and long range MG decimated the Soviets at range and only 30 or so reached the German lines to be finished off by small arms.

[AlbertN]

Such tactics are an abuse, because there is no way a depleted cavalry division could cause three divisions to each lose 10% combat effectiveness + fatigue + material lost. I'm glad we are getting somewhere now.

Again, you're like, ignoring the 200+ bbrs that flew overhead?

I would agree that CPP losses can be exploited and can be problematic, but please stop saying that it was just the cav. The cav spotted for a fleet of airplanes that dropped tons of bombs on the enemy positions.

I would also like to point out that the Cavalry Division I used in this attack was nearly completely fatigued with no combat preparation of its own, yet managed to escape pretty much unharmed despite being outnumbered 61:1 in guns and 90:1 in men. (Half of the 2000 men in the Cavalry Division are support, labourers).

That makes sense to me. If I were in command of the cavalry division, I would use small squads that are too mobile for the enemy artillery to effectively fire upon to slip into positions where they could spot for the planes. I would *very specifically* order my squads to withdraw as soon as they faced any resistance and report the position. In other words: my cav would not *actually* fight in the battle. That's not what I'm using it for. I'm using it to probe the lines and find out where specifically in the 175 square mile hex the enemy's positions are, since they are likely not simply bivouacked in parade formation.

You seem to be envisioning 1k cavalry doing the charge of the light brigade 5 times. The cavalry can simply not do that.

Probably we play 2 different games. In fact, we do.
You play single player - and consider normal that type of game-behaviour. The AI won't complain if you do. And all is good.
Ideally you can even invade Germany mainland in '41, reach Berlin with the Soviets, the German AI won't complain. It will give you a merry screen with some Soviet absolute victory.
Congratulations.
And yes I am being sarcastic - surely less of your other posts about X-Wings Fighters and M1 Abrams tanks.

You made your standpoint clear in other threads how you see the game.

You bring example of how Soviet Cavalry has such C3i level to coordinate with bombers - in an era where the Soviets barely had any ground to ground inter-unit cooperation, figure out mundane spotters to airforce.

But that is beyond the scope.

For the health of the game a hasty attack, paired up with a supreme ground attack force is not justified.
It's like asking for a Ground Attack (Unit) that goes via Ground Support.
But oh - few patches ago to avoid Ground Attack (Unit) spam there was a fix, converting it into Interdiction.
Why?
Because it was being (ab)used to fatigue units and deplete their ammo level before the real attack came.
Players simply are 'smart' and identify ways to (ab)use - or better many optimal use - of game mechanics.

It was already identified as a problem for another issue - and it is a problem also here.

BUT the Cavalry business is way larger than just 'Let's have some extra ground support'.
Problems I - and others - listed already previously.

And in general a Player-vs-Player player expects the game to have levels of balance or mechanics that cannot be (ab)used - or if we want, used in unsavoury way.
Because we're here to play a game, and not to police what the other player is doing.

[DarkHorse2]

At some point, you guys will realize that the game is not really about the damage inflicted on individual attacks.

With the exception of AC losses, the ground losses suffered by either the attacker or defender is almost always trivial.

The real damage inflicted comes from getting the opponent to retreat. Now those losses are not nearly as trivial.

Get the opponent to retreat enough times, eventually you will be able to isolate them... and that is where the real fun begins.

Stamb has shown how easily it is for cavalry to slip through cracks in the enemy lines and where he has been able to routinely force German retreats through use of his fast moving cavalry units.

Stamb, you scare me.

[ElizabethWizard]

If I'm sarcastic it's because I'm an old competitive gamer and I have very little patience for the scrub mentality of "something went against my expectations and therefore it needs to be changed now."

Also consider that the AI does this exact thing to me basically every single turn?

Also consider that these 4 hasty attacks are taking place over a week rather than in a single hour long time frame?

I bet you if there were a thousand people playing hth this wouldn't be even a blip on the radar.

[jasonbroomer]

DesertedFox

you are looking at a wrong table
table with CPP is

23.2.2. Losing Combat Preparation Points

if a unit is attacked and forced to retreat it will lose all its CPP. If it is attacked and
the attack fails the lost CPP will vary according to the final odds and the intensity of
the attack:
 if the odds were >=1.5 to 1, then the defender will lose half their CPP;
 if the final odds were >=1 to 1, the defender will lose one quarter of their
CPP;
 if the final odds were less than 1-1 the defender will lose 10% of their
CPP.

so defenders lose 10% from such attacks

10% will only be 10 CPP when a unit has 100 CPP, more often the unit will only have 30-50 CPP (or lower) which leads to a fairly trivial loss of 3-5 points as Toxic Thug points out. However, for a tiny Russian unit to disrupt 50,000 Germans does sound a little far fetched. Perhaps the solution is to code that attacks of less than 1-10 have no effect on defender CPP.

[Lurberri]

10% will only be 10 CPP when a unit has 100 CPP, more often the unit will only have 30-50 CPP (or lower) which leads to a fairly trivial loss of 3-5 points as Toxic Thug points out. However, for a tiny Russian unit to disrupt 50,000 Germans does sound a little far fetched. Perhaps the solution is to code that attacks of less than 1-10 have no effect on defender CPP.

+1
It seems consistent.

[ToxicThug11]

jasonbroomer wrote: ↑
10% will only be 10 CPP when a unit has 100 CPP, more often the unit will only have 30-50 CPP (or lower) which leads to a fairly trivial loss of 3-5 points as Toxic Thug points out.

Trivial in what sense? A 2000 man unready unit causing 3-5% combat effectiveness loss on 3x entrenched divisions adds up to 9%-15% combat effectiveness drop at a cost of 300 unexperienced Soviet men, without even considering fatigue / supply & ammo expenditure / German material lost. As Zebtucker posted, in real life, an attacking Soviet Cavalry Division was completely wiped out by a single German infantry division at no losses to the Germans.

44th Mongolian Cav Division attacked the German 106th ID at Musino, the whole thing was over in under an hour.

Summary losses of horses of the Division from Nov.16 to Dec.21: 1830 dead, 1471 missing. 3595 in total.
https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=132635221

And soldiers in the same period: 3299 in total.
https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=132635220

No German losses arising from its attacks, as Artillery and long range MG decimated the Soviets at range and only 30 or so reached the German lines to be finished off by small arms.

This unready and fatigued Cavalry formation was able to not only cause a 9-15% drop in German combat effectiveness but is still alive, causing contact attrition and needs to be dealt with in the German combat phase, which again results in a drop of CPP, supply expenditure, and mounting fatigue.

https://youtu.be/G4kvVbEEtMY

Cavalry are a secret Soviet weapon of mass destruction, seemingly indestructible, retreating from combat with little losses and causing strange drops in German combat effectiveness, even when in tatters.

[ToxicThug11]

ElizabethWizard wrote: ↑
Again, you're like, ignoring the 200+ bbrs that flew overhead?

I'm ignoring that because it is irrelevant to the discussion, the Cavalry attack alone caused a 9-15% drop in combat effectiveness due to CPP loss and would've done so without any air support.

If you want to factor in the ground support, then we can.

200 disruptions of the total 4073 elements (5% of the division is now disrupted and fatigued)

6 guns out of the 556 total guns destroyed (1% of the divisions guns destroyed)

3 guns out of the 556 total guns damaged (0.5% of the divisions guns damaged)

1 damaged armoured car out of 2

AA firing at bombers using ammo / supply

Are we to believe that the Cavalry division has laser spotters for the Soviet level bombers?

Anyways, the discussion isn't about level bombers being able to precision bomb Axis divisions. The discussion is about an unready Cavalry division being able to drop three German divisions combat effectiveness drastically with absolutely no consequence to the Soviets. With or without air support.

[ToxicThug11]

OMG, yes we need to introduce a house rule that Russian units in 1941 cannot end their turn next to Axis units as this will cause said damage/disruption to Axis units.

[EwaldvonKleist]

The problem of Soviet low odds attack has been in WitE1 and reappears here.
The way it is used in this example is as a trigger for an air force ground attack outside of the WEGO air war phase.

I believe the problam can be solved with a continois instead of a discrete CPP loss-formula.

That is, CPP-loss for the defender=100%/final battle odds.

This way, a negligible attack leads tobnegligible CPP loss.

[Joel Billings]

CPP is not a true indicator of fighting power of the division. Sure, a 3% CPP drop will reduce CV value by 3%, but that only matters at the end of the battle for odds. It has relatively minor impacts on the actual fighting. It does improve artillery accuracy somewhat (for both attacker and defender), but as for direct fire, I don't think it has any impact. So a 3% drop in CPP is not a 3% drop in combat efficiency. It will translate to much less than that in the impact on the combat, mostly reducing the final odds a bit. Final odds are important, especially if it means losing rather than winning a battle, but it's not a 1 for 1 drop in overall combat efficiency, and in fact may have very little impact on the results of the battle.

[AlbertN]

It's not just the matter of CCP. It's the ensamble of business.

To attack another unit causes them to lose MP in the subsequent turn - to various levels.
To get in combat spends ammunition / supplies.
To get in cobmat adds fatigue passively.
Disrupted elements (that can come from bombers too) get converted in unit fatigue.

That ontop of the CPP business.

Now - if the Cavalry unit was charging in, pretty much self shattering in a kamikaze attack against even a single German ID - that would be a thing.
Lousy losses on the other hand implies a rinse-repeat, if not in the same turn, in subsequent turns.

Probably I forget something else about the benefits.

[ShaggyHiK]

It is amazing how people, hearing a "cavalry" division, imagine a dense cavalry formation of hussars galloping on horseback during the time of Napoleon.

It's amazing how dense people's ideas about real combat operations are.

At the same time, although this happened, even during the Great Patriotic War, the conditions for such attacks were special, which to implement in the conditions of the game is how to implement the assault on Koenigsberg, the game simply will not allow you to take it in 4 days.

Which obviously cannot be an argument against cavalry.

Loss of CPP: I rather agree that we need to look at the results of the battle. And "plans of violation" happen only in the case of more significant attacks. To avoid abuse.

I did not see any serious argument against a minor loss of cavalry, why in the view of the German players this should be a suicidal attack and nothing else?
Cavalrymen are mobile on the march, they are more mobile in all types of redeployment, while cavalrymen are more professional in terms of recruited personnel. Horse care is a whole science, if you do it the wrong way, it will die and will not ask what ideas you adhere to.

exceptional real-life failures are no indication that cavalry divisions should make every attack as suicidal.

Sample screenshot is disgusting and doesn't show anything, what prevents cavalrymen with radio stations that interact with aircraft and direct its raids? What prevents the German player from shooting down these planes with his own? Other than "Well, I lost my plane, I'm a weak noob who doesn't want to learn how to use aviation"?

Soviet cavalry divisions, such only in name.
At the same time, the early cavalry divisions should be just divisions. All the same, this is an elite of 8 thousand people. The army almost did not touch the discovered units. On this occasion, they should be precisely divisions for supervision.

While the arriving Soviet divisions in 4 thousand people should already be exactly brigades. Their content is absolutely consistent with the brigade.