flank bonus?

[jay102]

Is there any flank bonus in WitE? Does attacking from more than 3 directions give an edge?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jay102

Is there any flank bonus in WitE? Does attacking from more than 3 directions give an edge?

No.


Leo "Apollo11"

[EisenHammer]

^Are you sure^ attacking from different directions usually helps out.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

^Are you sure^ attacking from different directions usually helps out.

I should be... [8D]

BTW, this was all discussed long long time ago at WitE developer's forum and it was not implemented in current WitE (as well as, similarly, we don't have the "holding the line" bonus)...

What the future will bring (time permitting) only Pavel knows... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[EisenHammer]

Then why is there a unit speed and maneuverability stats and armor stats for Panzers and all other tanks in the combat computations.???
Why have all this other stuff and not flanking?[&:]

[KenchiSulla]

It all depends on combat strength. If you are attacking from three sides with weak units (relative) into a hex occupied by a strong unit why should you get a flanking bonus? The unit could have prepared for the scenario and you are not flanking him - you are hitting a part of its strength headon.....

Know about the thumb shaped corridor the 1st airborne defended in Oosterbeek? (operation Market Garden). It was pressed from all sides (just not attacked from the base of the corridor - river Rhine) and it was a very strong position... Technically it wasnt flanked at all.... and held out for quite a while because of the excellent arty support from 30th corps.

What I am saying is - It is all taken into account in the CV of a unit...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
It all depends on combat strength. If you are attacking from three sides with weak units (relative) into a hex occupied by a strong unit why should you get a flanking bonus? The unit could have prepared for the scenario and you are not flanking him - you are hitting a part of its strength headon.....

Know about the thumb shaped corridor the 1st airborne defended in Oosterbeek? (operation Market Garden). It was pressed from all sides (just not attacked from the base of the corridor - river Rhine) and it was a very strong position... Technically it wasnt flanked at all.... and held out for quite a while because of the excellent arty support from 30th corps.

I don't agree with your logic. In general, if you are attacking from three sides you should get a flanking bonus because most defenders don't create defenses equally strong in all directions, and as the attacker, you would attack where you sense the defender is weaker, and not "it a part of its strength head-on".

While one can certainly cite examples of units conducting a successful 360 degree defense, I think situations in which a weak unit attacking in the rear achieved disproportionately large effects would be much more common, especially if the defending commander is not particularly competent.

While I'm not sure that a simple "flanking bonus" would be appropriate in all cases, I think it would be cool if defender commander quality affected whether or not such a modifier would apply. Similarly, units attacking more strongly fortified defenders should get less of a flanking bonus, as the defenders would have had more time to prepare alternate positions, etc.

[jimkehn]

I dont think a flank bonus is needed at this scale. The armor rating thickness is there because the actual resolution of the combat is resolved on a unit by unit basis. And a random facing is chosen I presume. But when we are talking this scale, I am not sure any bonus other that the bonus you get from being able to bring more units to bear on the combat is needed.

[Zovs]

You need to take into account the following factors; each hex is 10 miles in area, a division sitting in the hex alone actually has 3 regiments plus the HQ of the division and the supporting units.

So technically in this 'abstract' world of war gaming with a hexagon and a weekly turn the division would not necessarly be out flanked per see, that being said the complex formulas that rely on too many factors to list (and sometimes to even understand) thrown in with random die rolls already account for this to one degree or another.

[jimkehn]

+1

[76mm]

I am kind of on the fence on this issue, but to me it seems a little silly to calculate the detailed effects of every weapons system in a unit when determining combat results but to ignore the very significant fact that those weapons systems might not be pointing in the right direction.

The fact is that the defender's task is much easier when all of the enemy forces are to their front. Once attackers start maneuvering behind a defender, it makes it much easier for the defender to err in three ways: (i) the defender can pull too many/too few forces from the main line to meet the new threat; (ii) the defender could allocate the right number of troops, but deploy them to the wrong area (since they don't know exactly what the attacker is up to); and (iii) deploy the right number of troops to the right area, but get the timing wrong by dithering about making a decision, not recognizing the threat until too late, etc. Making any one of these mistakes could result in the defender being in a worse defensive posture than with all of the attackers to the front. While all of these factors are also present to some extent even with all attackers to the front, I believe they are greatly exaggerated once the attacker is to the rear.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: JimKehn

+1

+2 [:D]

[KenchiSulla]

Again, 76mm, I believe this has been taken into account in the CV of a unit. If you outnumber the enemy (by presenting more forces on the battlefield - attacking from more then one direction) and have better quality troops you have a better CV value - often routing th enemy or at least force a retreat... I dont see why you need to see a "flanking" attack to confirm it...

Also think of this: it is a IGOUGO system. The attacker would be able to get advantages all the time because the defender can not respond to threats.... It is not a tactical game - it is strategic with a nice layer of depth: Unit stats and a selection system based on experience and moral to determine if a unit fires and hits and if the hits penetrate or cause damage..

I believe the system you are referring to is HOI3?

[FredSanford3]

Since the game is at a 10 mile (side to side) hex scale, and weekly turns, I don't think tactical flanking bonuses are appropriate.  The defender will have the ability to adjust their deployment to 'face' the threats.  Sub-hex tactical flankings I think are part of leader ratings- a highly rated leader will be able to manuever tactically to create advantageous tactical situations over a poorly rated leader's forces.  Note also that the only time you can attack from multiple directions simultaneously is during deliberate attacks.  In that case, the attacker will have the ability to bring superior numbers to bear, but by the same token the defender will have had time to deploy to cover all axes of approach.  At the level of this game, 'flanking' is reflected in the creation of pockets that interrupt the defender's lines of supply/communications.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I am kind of on the fence on this issue, but to me it seems a little silly to calculate the detailed effects of every weapons system in a unit when determining combat results but to ignore the very significant fact that those weapons systems might not be pointing in the right direction.

The fact is that the defender's task is much easier when all of the enemy forces are to their front. Once attackers start maneuvering behind a defender, it makes it much easier for the defender to err in three ways: (i) the defender can pull too many/too few forces from the main line to meet the new threat; (ii) the defender could allocate the right number of troops, but deploy them to the wrong area (since they don't know exactly what the attacker is up to); and (iii) deploy the right number of troops to the right area, but get the timing wrong by dithering about making a decision, not recognizing the threat until too late, etc. Making any one of these mistakes could result in the defender being in a worse defensive posture than with all of the attackers to the front. While all of these factors are also present to some extent even with all attackers to the front, I believe they are greatly exaggerated once the attacker is to the rear.

Agreed.

Flanking attacks are crucial at every level from tactical to strategic. From flanking a trench, to rolling up a line. There should be recognition of this basic military fact in the combat system.

Using this engine, you could attack the Maginot line from the rear, or full-on and the defenses would be equally impregnable. That's surely absurd.

[gradenko2k]

it seems a little silly to calculate the detailed effects of every weapons system in a unit when determining combat results but to ignore the very significant fact that those weapons systems might not be pointing in the right direction.

The time scale involved is an entire week at a time. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that within a week, you could simply point those weapons in whichever direction you needed to.

Using this engine, you could attack the Maginot line from the rear, or full-on and the defenses would be equally impregnable. That's surely absurd.

Using this engine, you could cut off the Maginot's supply lines by establishing a line of ZOCs across all the rail-heads leading to it, which is flanking on an operational/strategic scale.

To wit, I'm pretty sure that what the Germans did historically anyway.

And that's putting aside the comparison of a series of static defenses intended to face one way as opposed to the implication that an organic infantry division might be able to reposition its constituent parts to throw off an attack from any direction, given the time frame of an entire week.

[notenome]

I've already mentioned this before, but I think a flank bonus is crucial. Though the turns last a week, combat doesn't, a 50 mp division making a hasty attack does not represent a weeks worth of attacks, not even a day. If there is no flanking bonus then what is being done, effectively, is giving the defense the capacity to concentrate all its firepower with unlimited mobility. The simple fact of facing formations coming from separate angles forces the defender to either have an open flank or have to disperse its assets. This is why I have sugested that the number of defending elements that can fire on attacking elements should be divided by the number of directions they are attacked from, with the exception of mobile elements (like tanks) that can more easily shift about. In other words, if a defender is attacked from two sides, each of the two divisions should only come under fire from 50% of the non mobile defending elements, plus the mobile elements. Matter of fact, it shouldn't even be necessary for the defender to be attacked from multiple sides, just be bordered on multiple sides, as it doesn't know where the attack will come from.

[squatter]

The game doesnt simulate six days of maneuvre and a single day of battle at the end of that. It simulates a week of maneuvre and combat. You can't move your bunkers and dig new trench systems overnight if an enemy division appears unexpectedly at your rear one night, and attacks first thing in the morning.
 
What you're saying is that in this game, every defending unit is prepared for, and reacts perfectly to, every single direction of attack it faces, no matter from how many directions, and no matter if these attacks are in sequence, or simultaneous. Personally, I find that model to be lacking in simulating accurately the nature of combat on this scale.
 
Cutting off supply is another matter altogther, that is accurately reflected in the engine, but I'm afraid it's not pertinent to this discussion.

[KenchiSulla]

I never said they were reacting perfectly. You have to look at the bigger picture here. Many things are abstracted... How many units are not firing when you attack a entrenched division? Thats right - most don't.... You are only facing a small part of the division untill you do or do not break them... Attacking a entrenched unit is hard. If they had time to dig they have had time to cover many of the possible routes in the "Hex". They have had time to mine most possible routes. They have had time to create a locale defense in depth and a local flank defense.

The moment you outflank a unit very heavily (have more units attack it from multiple direction) the chance you will rout/retreat him will be very high indeed... This is represented by CV as you can bring MANY MORE units to the attack then the enemy can...

The defender cannot react during your turn - this is key! Enabling flanking bonus would give a attacking player a unfair advantage on this scale and in a IGOUGO system....

I really dont see the issue here... in my eyes the system works....

[2ndACR]

I could see a flank bonus in a game with daily turns, but not weekly turns. The scale is wrong for it. IMO anyway.