Saper222(Ger)VsMktours(Sov)1.07.11---Saper welcome

[mktours]

T3 south, SHC act

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: mktours

critical counter attack to displace HQ of 57Pz

Holy moly, that dice roll. That was a great counterattack.

[mktours]

SigUp,
That is a normal result. The displayed CV is often misleading. There are more factors affecting the combat than the displayed CV on the counter.

ORIGINAL: SigUp
Holy moly, that dice roll. That was a great counterattack.

[morvael]

Remember that only the attacker is eligible for a x2 CV multiplication for the entire unit on a successful leader combat skill roll. That allows fighting battles with 1:1 strength ratio and still win. Add to that Soviet 1:1->2:1 bonus and they can really win some fights in 1941. The game favours attack with these rules.

[Gabriel B.]

I am bit surprised about how much soviet fighters are showing up thou .
mktours must be doing something ...good. [:)]

[Michael T]

Remember that only the attacker is eligible for a x2 CV multiplication for the entire unit on a successful leader combat skill roll. That allows fighting battles with 1:1 strength ratio and still win. Add to that Soviet 1:1->2:1 bonus and they can really win some fights in 1941. The game favours attack with these rules.

IMO this is a big problem with the game. It makes defending very difficult against Soviets. 1:1 > 2:1 should be gone.

[mktours]

morvael,
Thanks for sharing this information! That is a great design, which makes the game much more fun!
I also discover that if the attacker attacks from fort area or woods, it is more likely to win, I am not sure if it is true, but I hope so. I also hope that attacking from multiple direction towards target hex is rewarded.
It is a great game, but it could still be made greater, thanks for all the work you have done to improve it.[:)]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Remember that only the attacker is eligible for a x2 CV multiplication for the entire unit on a successful leader combat skill roll. That allows fighting battles with 1:1 strength ratio and still win. Add to that Soviet 1:1->2:1 bonus and they can really win some fights in 1941. The game favours attack with these rules.

[mktours]

Michael,
I agree that 1:1>2:1 probably should go, It makes many easy counter attack against Saper in our game, which makes the game very difficult for him. But if it is completely removed, then the SHC would be almost impossible to counter, that would be another issue, some degree change might be better.
"only the attacker is eligible for a x2 CV multiplication for the entire unit on a successful leader combat skill roll." is a great design. I completely second that idea.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Remember that only the attacker is eligible for a x2 CV multiplication for the entire unit on a successful leader combat skill roll. That allows fighting battles with 1:1 strength ratio and still win. Add to that Soviet 1:1->2:1 bonus and they can really win some fights in 1941. The game favours attack with these rules.

IMO this is a big problem with the game. It makes defending very difficult against Soviets. 1:1 > 2:1 should be gone.

[mktours]

Gabriel,
The west front air commander is among those who got replaced very early, [:)]

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

I am bit surprised about how much soviet fighters are showing up thou .
mktours must be doing something ...good. [:)]

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: mktours

morvael,
Thanks for sharing this information! That is a great design, which makes the game much more fun!
I also discover that if the attacker attacks from fort area or woods, it is more likely to win, I am not sure if it is true, but I hope so. I also hope that attacking from multiple direction towards target hex is rewarded.
It is a great game, but it could still be made greater, thanks for all the work you have done to improve it.[:)]

Your own forts should help CV-wise when attacking while being isolated or something like that. I also know they help with artillery fire or fire combat in general (higher fort level means better fire control and better protection), but I don't have exact details. This observation of yours may be true to some extent.

As for woods - I don't think so, but I have described the dense terrain modifier in the patch notes and perhaps you are seeing it's results. But only the terrain in the defender's hex matters for that modifier.

Attacking from multiple directions gives you a chance to use more units, simple as that. There is no special bonus, other than one when being completely surrounded and out of supply which may cause low morale units to break (their CV is divided by 10 if they fail a roll).

[mktours]

That is a pity, since flank attacking or attacking from the rear is the most thrilling war experience. It could be a easy change and would make the game more interesting.
In real war, being half circled cause big trouble to defender.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Attacking from multiple directions gives you a chance to use more units, simple as that. There is no special bonus, other than one when being completely surrounded and out of supply which may cause low morale units to break (their CV is divided by 10 if they fail a roll).

[morvael]

Already the hex frontlines are almost straight (if not at rivers), because players optimize exposure to attacks from multiple directions. The grid is very crude and hexes either face 1-3-1-3 enemy hexes or (when diagonal) 2-2-2-2. In reality any straight line would not offer such exposure points. Adding flank bonus to that is too much - perhaps it should apply only when attacking from opposite sides and/or 4 or more directions - and in that case units are already doomed to lose battle.

[mktours]

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Already the hex frontlines are almost straight (if not at rivers), because players optimize exposure to attacks from multiple directions. The grid is very crude and hexes either face 1-3-1-3 enemy hexes or (when diagonal) 2-2-2-2. In reality any straight line would not offer such exposure points. Adding flank bonus to that is too much - perhaps it should apply only when attacking from opposite sides and/or 4 or more directions - and in that case units are already doomed to lose battle.

[mktours]

T4 north-center, before SHC act
4th PzG did a left hook strike and almost created a pocket at the land bridge. 3rd PzG did a lot of attack with the motorize troops at the land bridge; I believe all of their MPs had been spent. These costly attacks were to have their effect in later turns.
Apart from 4 Divs which were locked last turn, there was only one more div being herded into the Vitebsk pocket. Further north, another div from NW front also was pocketed, which only have 2000 men in it (I railed it to front last turn).

[mktours]

The carpet attack at the land bridge

[mktours]

T4 south before SHC act
Saper surprised me by driving his motorize backward to encircle 3 air-drop brigades. It could be good news to my side as they spent some of their fuel there, but it is always painful to lose air drop troops.

[mktours]

The powerful SS division did a haste attack and knocked out a 3CV division in the city. Another good example of that the displayed defending CV of cities could be misleading. Unfortunately, I didn't learn the lesson and continue to make misjudgments in defending cities, I always have a impression that cities have big bonus for defending, I was wrong.

[mktours]

T4 center-north SHC act
I studied the position of GHC Pzs and made deployment to prevent could be big Pz break through.

[mktours]

an important counter attack to clear the ZOC lock to retreat the half pocket troops.

[mktours]

T4 south SHC act
I did a final check at the end of the turn to calculate the MP distance of the GHC spearhead, to my horror, it only need 47 MP to reach Stalino, which is undefended! And I have already done the deployment, so I moved 2 Calvary divs from the right bank of Dnept to cover the route. A disaster move.