Moderator: Vic
For visualization.ORIGINAL: alex0809
I think it's reasonable that a very-well entrenched unit can hold off enemies of even 5 times its size or so, no question - it happened in reality, stories of horrendous casualties of Soviets when they charged defensive positions FRONTALLY are famous..
but I think that attacking an entrenched unit from even just two sides should VASTLY decrease the entrenchment bonus of the defenders. Right now, I think the concentric bonus is too low.
(I'm not talking about AT guns here, I don't have much military knowledge, so I just assumed that these 1000 infantry men in an artillery regiment represent 1000 regular soldiers that are meant to protect the guns, not the gun crews itself)
one of the best ones ever made.. if not THE best one!ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
So, I have created a new SFT type called 2nd Rate Infantry with lower stats and a different image. I then changed the TOE for the Artillery unit shown to use this type of infantry and also edited the pre-defined units as well.
Someone needs to take this further as it's not a big issue IMHO, and it looks like you might need to mod each relevant on-map unit, but Vic might be able to explain a quicker method.
Takes about 20 minutes to create the new unit type, but several hours if you have to click through every Arty, AT and HQ unit on the map. (There must be a quick way to do that - I just haven't looked for it).
ORIGINAL: ComradeP
It is indeed possible that a small unit could cause significant losses to a larger unit and take few of its own, and I don't have a problem with the casualties per se. I do have mixed feelings about the entrenchment system, as well as the fact that the primary means to reduce entrenchment (artillery and air power) are uneffective currently after 1 turn. Aside from the penalties to artillery, I also don't know why my air group readiness keeps dropping even with no losses. 1 sortie (or a couple of sorties after eachother) every 2 days probably shouldn't cause any significant drops in readiness.
I for one really do like the new arty system. In AT/G it always used to be use uber stack of arty to kill everyone. Then vic added the battlestack stuff which helped but still arty was way too strong. I like this system you can shoot every turn but you won't be as effective as if you shoot every 2-3 turns.
ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I for one really do like the new arty system. In AT/G it always used to be use uber stack of arty to kill everyone. Then vic added the battlestack stuff which helped but still arty was way too strong. I like this system you can shoot every turn but you won't be as effective as if you shoot every 2-3 turns.
Perhaps, but if you nerf artillery because it's too powerful, it's not ideal to keep an entrenchment system in place that more or less requires the usage of artillery to give reasonable results.
I don't want artillery to cause serious amounts of casualties, I want artillery that can reduce entrenchment levels. Even fully supplied artillery units don't perform all that well.
ORIGINAL: elmo3
ORIGINAL: bwheatley
...But no casualties is a little maddening. Used to drive me nuts in wite you'd attack with something and the attacker wouldn't lose a single troop. But again i can't see the attack details to see if everything was just misses or how many rounds the attack lasted.
Yeah I would have expected a unit with 45 AT guns and infantry support, well dug in, with OK morale and in low mountains to have shredded quite a bit of that German armor trying to attack them. So again it looks more to me like the LAH just balked at attacking for some reason and that was the reason for no casualties. If this sort of 0 loss result happens a lot then maybe the combat results need to be tweaked a bit. But I would not have expected this unit to just roll over and die as some have suggested here. Many German accounts of the war have described how hard it was to root Soviet defenders out of well entrenched positions.
Edit - And note the very high integrity of that AT unit (94). It won't break until that drops to below 50 IIRC.
ORIGINAL: Treale
ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I for one really do like the new arty system. In AT/G it always used to be use uber stack of arty to kill everyone. Then vic added the battlestack stuff which helped but still arty was way too strong. I like this system you can shoot every turn but you won't be as effective as if you shoot every 2-3 turns.
Perhaps, but if you nerf artillery because it's too powerful, it's not ideal to keep an entrenchment system in place that more or less requires the usage of artillery to give reasonable results.
I don't want artillery to cause serious amounts of casualties, I want artillery that can reduce entrenchment levels. Even fully supplied artillery units don't perform all that well.
But didn't artillery cause the most casualties in WWII?
ORIGINAL: abulbulian
ORIGINAL: elmo3
ORIGINAL: bwheatley
...But no casualties is a little maddening. Used to drive me nuts in wite you'd attack with something and the attacker wouldn't lose a single troop. But again i can't see the attack details to see if everything was just misses or how many rounds the attack lasted.
Yeah I would have expected a unit with 45 AT guns and infantry support, well dug in, with OK morale and in low mountains to have shredded quite a bit of that German armor trying to attack them. So again it looks more to me like the LAH just balked at attacking for some reason and that was the reason for no casualties. If this sort of 0 loss result happens a lot then maybe the combat results need to be tweaked a bit. But I would not have expected this unit to just roll over and die as some have suggested here. Many German accounts of the war have described how hard it was to root Soviet defenders out of well entrenched positions.
Edit - And note the very high integrity of that AT unit (94). It won't break until that drops to below 50 IIRC.
umm, I think you need to think about the following before make such a silly comment as
"Yeah I would have expected a unit with 45 AT guns and infantry support, well dug in, with OK morale and in low mountains to have shredded quite a bit of that German armor trying to attack them."
Here's why:
1 - I didn't attack with the Pz Regiment, rather the 2 Pz Grenadier Regiment, thus a lot of inf support
2 - this AT unit is trying to cover 10km (I believe hex) by itself. So how much can it effectively cover with with 45 AT guns and 400 troops? Will let you do the math.
3 - If the guns are concentrated, then the unit would just bypass and hit them from the rear or some other envelopment tactic.
4 - The L.A.H. was one of the top units to fight on the eastern front.
5 - Overall leadership and tactics of the Germans was at this point in the war still far superior to the Soviets
Thus, were not talking about some moronic charge by the L.A.H. units onto the AT guns. If so, then why both having officer with stats, staff with exp, units with morale/exp???
What is the point if everything in the combat engine given what you just said. I would go back to playing Axis and Allies if I didn't care about some of the realism the combat engine and unit/leader details are suppose to add to the experience of the game.
ORIGINAL: alex0809
How many times have I watched that movie
