Hello Vic and Cameron.
Checking in to ask whether the combat system is working as designed relative to big combats.
The table shows the attackers and defenders and their status in a German attack on Soviet Regulars in Forest Hex 33,12 SW of Leningrad. All Soviet units are in neutral posture. All German units in Blitzkrieg posture with tactical air and theater artillery support. German Airbase is in Luga. All German units within 2 hexes of 18th Army HQ attacking from two hexes, 3 units from one hex, 4 units from the other. No fortification in hex 33,12. Weather fair. PBEM game, Version 1.03h3.
Unit HQ AP Supply Integrity Ready Exp Morale Entr lvl
Soviets
163rd Mech LMD 100 100 83 100 26 60 125
3rd Tk LMD 100 100 67 100 30 60 60
29 Bord LMD 100 100 100 100 30 60 150
22 Bord LMD 100 100 98 100 30 60 150
4 Bord BMD 100 100 51 100 30 47 150
10th Air BMD 100 100 46 100 28 60 150
German
86th Inf 18th 100 100 96 100 40 91
61st Inf 18th 100 100 91 92 41 95
1st Inf 18th 100 100 100 93 40 99
27th Inf 18th 100 100 97 92 41 98
11th Inf 18th 100 100 84 92 41 99
217th Inf 18th 100 100 97 92 41 98
21st Inf 18th 100 100 99 93 40 99
SP ratio of this attack: 415/200 v 214.
Result: All Soviets hold, loss of 15. All German units retreat, loss of 52.
I had additional units in these hexes and ran a tower of doom attack (something like 700 v 214) against the same defenders with the same result. Also ran the attack with 6 German units, 3 from each hex, same result.
I have now played 6 PBEM games and am now playing 3 others (and have enjoyed them immensely). This kind of result however is not unusual and seems wrong (not to mention frustrating trying to figure out what is going on). I am wondering if it is consistent with the results you would expect to see and if so, why? That is, what is the underlying Soviet advantage in the combat engine producing this kind of result??
Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
I'm sure V C will answer but I think you'll find there are a few aspects here. Perhaps the biggest is that your attack is overstacking and you are receiving penalties for that. By attacking from just 2 directions your stacking limit is 200 yet you are piling in 415, or twice as many troops. I think the wisdom is maybe overstacking by up to 33% is not going to hurt too bad (so long as you win) but anything more and your return on investment really drops off. In order to use those amounts of troops you need to be attacking from a 3rd and ideally a 4th direction. This will give you a limit of 300 and 400 respectively. Plus you will also get an extra bonus, especially as your attackers are all from the same Army in this case. Unfortunately this is easier said than done as the enemy will try and do their best to limit your avenues of attack. But opening up that 3rd direction will make a difference in many cases.
Secondly he is utilising his own stacking limit for that hex almost perfectly at 214. In very good forest defensive terrain and is well dug in at 150 with high morale at 60. Thats going to make him a tough nut to crack at the best of times. If your 18th army does have artillery assigned then your pioneers in time will get to work reducing those fortifications by you remaining next to the hex (results will be in your AGN report), though to be honest there are probably too many units for this to be effective. You might need to look for another way around. Perhaps the Valdai hills?
Thirdly you morale at 40/41 is relatively low. Looks like the results of maybe a series of failed assaults? I think rest the only cure, or the morale officer card. But I think its the first 2 that are the big problem. Up to a point you can bring a big hammer and knock down the door, but you need to be hitting the side doors and windows too. Overstacking means your tower of doom is not a valid tactic.
Secondly he is utilising his own stacking limit for that hex almost perfectly at 214. In very good forest defensive terrain and is well dug in at 150 with high morale at 60. Thats going to make him a tough nut to crack at the best of times. If your 18th army does have artillery assigned then your pioneers in time will get to work reducing those fortifications by you remaining next to the hex (results will be in your AGN report), though to be honest there are probably too many units for this to be effective. You might need to look for another way around. Perhaps the Valdai hills?
Thirdly you morale at 40/41 is relatively low. Looks like the results of maybe a series of failed assaults? I think rest the only cure, or the morale officer card. But I think its the first 2 that are the big problem. Up to a point you can bring a big hammer and knock down the door, but you need to be hitting the side doors and windows too. Overstacking means your tower of doom is not a valid tactic.
"Stay low, move fast"
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Hi Gunnulf and thanks for the reply.
The table did not upload well but the morale of all the German units was above 90. I wonder about the experience levels (all in the 40's) since the attacking units have been in plenty of battles as winners.
As I noted, I tried the attack with 3 units per hex and the SP overage was, in that case, in the neighborhood of 33% or less. Same result, high German loss, all Germans retreat, all Soviets hold. I hear you and understand about the gains made as you attack from more hexes.
Note from the table also that not all the Soviets are well dug in, they are from two different commands vs a German force with high AP's from the same Army with tactical air and theatre artillery support. Germans can't make it any better than this. My point is that if this the result that is intended and produced by the combat engine the Soviets are going to be able to set up impregnable defenses around the Victory towns that the Germans will not be able to breach and that this can be achieved easily by any competent Soviet player.
Last, overstacking by the defender does not create any significant penalty for the defender that I have observed and creates an even higher (and insurmountable) barrier for the German player.
The table did not upload well but the morale of all the German units was above 90. I wonder about the experience levels (all in the 40's) since the attacking units have been in plenty of battles as winners.
As I noted, I tried the attack with 3 units per hex and the SP overage was, in that case, in the neighborhood of 33% or less. Same result, high German loss, all Germans retreat, all Soviets hold. I hear you and understand about the gains made as you attack from more hexes.
Note from the table also that not all the Soviets are well dug in, they are from two different commands vs a German force with high AP's from the same Army with tactical air and theatre artillery support. Germans can't make it any better than this. My point is that if this the result that is intended and produced by the combat engine the Soviets are going to be able to set up impregnable defenses around the Victory towns that the Germans will not be able to breach and that this can be achieved easily by any competent Soviet player.
Last, overstacking by the defender does not create any significant penalty for the defender that I have observed and creates an even higher (and insurmountable) barrier for the German player.
Walt
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
It seems like a reasonable combat result to me. My advice is not to try to break very strong and fortified soviet elements (like these 6 divisions) head-on.
Try to find a way to move around them and encircle them. Thats really the best advice I can give.
Overstacking has a significant impact on the defender as well by the way, just the same as on the attacker.
Note also that your attacking with infantry only. Get a 3rd angle of attack and mix some panzers in the mix if you really want to take that very well defended hex to fall.
Best wishes,
Vic
Try to find a way to move around them and encircle them. Thats really the best advice I can give.
Overstacking has a significant impact on the defender as well by the way, just the same as on the attacker.
Note also that your attacking with infantry only. Get a 3rd angle of attack and mix some panzers in the mix if you really want to take that very well defended hex to fall.
Best wishes,
Vic
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Hi Wadortch,
I've played a similar number of PBEM games as you, and I'm still getting my head around it all as well. I think the big factor here are combat strength modifiers.
(I think I've got this right, but if not - someone - shout!)
The 415 vs 214 score above is the base power of the units involved.
Various factors give +/- % power modifiers. In this case its:
Soviets - All the strongest units are fully entrenched (+150%) and Soviets fighting in woods get a 40% bonus. If they are also within 2 hexes of their HQ, which may be giving 50-60% benefit for a total bonus of 250% ish. That puts them up to a net 700 (again, ish. Everything from here on is mostly "ish")
Germans - theatre artillery spread across the 6 divisions gives 14% each. HQ gives somewhere between 60-70% at a guess (you should be able to see from the unit details). Luftwaffe support is the big unknown, it varies according to distance, quality of airfield, weather & oil level I believe - so this could be anywhere between 0-50% . I'm guessing 30% based on close airfield but that far into Russia low quality. Blitz gives 50%. concentric 20%. A total modifier of around 180% "ish" for a net 1160.
Basically I make it that the modifiers have pushed this from a basic 2:1 to something closer to a 3:2, with penalties for overstacking.
Not sure those are great odds for a successful attack against full readiness defenders. I think the problem also is that the more you go away from the ideal ratio (lets assume its 3:1) for a successful attack, the higher the attacker/defender casualty imbalance will be - probably at an exponential rate.
I also don't think theatre artillery reduces entrenchment as such just fortifications (which add to base entrenchment) - in this case its just base entrenchment for the woods I'm guessing.
And yes, this means trying to breach a well dug in straight line of stacks is a real effort. When you find out how to do it, would you kindly drop me a line and let me know...?
cheers
Steve
I've played a similar number of PBEM games as you, and I'm still getting my head around it all as well. I think the big factor here are combat strength modifiers.
(I think I've got this right, but if not - someone - shout!)
The 415 vs 214 score above is the base power of the units involved.
Various factors give +/- % power modifiers. In this case its:
Soviets - All the strongest units are fully entrenched (+150%) and Soviets fighting in woods get a 40% bonus. If they are also within 2 hexes of their HQ, which may be giving 50-60% benefit for a total bonus of 250% ish. That puts them up to a net 700 (again, ish. Everything from here on is mostly "ish")
Germans - theatre artillery spread across the 6 divisions gives 14% each. HQ gives somewhere between 60-70% at a guess (you should be able to see from the unit details). Luftwaffe support is the big unknown, it varies according to distance, quality of airfield, weather & oil level I believe - so this could be anywhere between 0-50% . I'm guessing 30% based on close airfield but that far into Russia low quality. Blitz gives 50%. concentric 20%. A total modifier of around 180% "ish" for a net 1160.
Basically I make it that the modifiers have pushed this from a basic 2:1 to something closer to a 3:2, with penalties for overstacking.
Not sure those are great odds for a successful attack against full readiness defenders. I think the problem also is that the more you go away from the ideal ratio (lets assume its 3:1) for a successful attack, the higher the attacker/defender casualty imbalance will be - probably at an exponential rate.
I also don't think theatre artillery reduces entrenchment as such just fortifications (which add to base entrenchment) - in this case its just base entrenchment for the woods I'm guessing.
And yes, this means trying to breach a well dug in straight line of stacks is a real effort. When you find out how to do it, would you kindly drop me a line and let me know...?
cheers
Steve
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
To Steve 110.
Thanks for your explanation which is the best I have seen with regard to how the modifiers are being applied!
Vic and Cameron--has Steve got it right? It is never been clear to me the relationship between stacking and power points. Does Steve have this key aspect right, too?
If he does have it right, it means that really well entrenched and up to strength Soviets (which was not the case in the example I provided) are never going to get pushed out of the way in attacks from two hexes even from the very best German troops with all the bonuses available to them. Not here to argue about that, just wanting to know what the playing field really is. Suggestions about "working around" and getting that 3rd angle of attack are great but in practice are not going to work when the Soviets are well dug in around the "Victory" cities.
And Vic, I try to use all infantry in attacks against Soviets in woods because of the penalties associated with using panzers attacking in woods that are not roaded. Am I missing something in this regard?
Last, I have not seen exponential losses to overstacked defenders in many cases. Will continue to plug away at this and provide more examples of attacks to illustrate what I am beginning to think is a significant flaw in the game engine. Which means I will continue to play this great game (hoping it will continue to get better as more play data comes in).
And Steve, if I figure out how to crack the nut, I will let you know!
Thanks for your explanation which is the best I have seen with regard to how the modifiers are being applied!
Vic and Cameron--has Steve got it right? It is never been clear to me the relationship between stacking and power points. Does Steve have this key aspect right, too?
If he does have it right, it means that really well entrenched and up to strength Soviets (which was not the case in the example I provided) are never going to get pushed out of the way in attacks from two hexes even from the very best German troops with all the bonuses available to them. Not here to argue about that, just wanting to know what the playing field really is. Suggestions about "working around" and getting that 3rd angle of attack are great but in practice are not going to work when the Soviets are well dug in around the "Victory" cities.
And Vic, I try to use all infantry in attacks against Soviets in woods because of the penalties associated with using panzers attacking in woods that are not roaded. Am I missing something in this regard?
Last, I have not seen exponential losses to overstacked defenders in many cases. Will continue to plug away at this and provide more examples of attacks to illustrate what I am beginning to think is a significant flaw in the game engine. Which means I will continue to play this great game (hoping it will continue to get better as more play data comes in).
And Steve, if I figure out how to crack the nut, I will let you know!
Walt
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Yes exceeding maximum stacking a lot for a certain attack can have a big impact on casualties and in rare cases even on the result in general.
I strongly advise to run some test games with FOW = OFF and make similar battles and look and the combat detail screen to see the effect of ALL modifiers and stacking rules and whatnot on the actual combat calculations.
And I repeat my core advise: avoid frontal assaults if possible.
It should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov or any other towns and then reduce their defenders easily once they are out of supply.
best wishes,
Vic
I strongly advise to run some test games with FOW = OFF and make similar battles and look and the combat detail screen to see the effect of ALL modifiers and stacking rules and whatnot on the actual combat calculations.
And I repeat my core advise: avoid frontal assaults if possible.
It should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov or any other towns and then reduce their defenders easily once they are out of supply.
best wishes,
Vic
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
ORIGINAL: Vic
And I repeat my core advise: avoid frontal assaults if possible.
It should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov or any other towns and then reduce their defenders easily once they are out of supply.
best wishes,
Vic
Where were you when Von Paulus needed advice...? Certainly worked for Zhukov
"Stay low, move fast"
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Hi Vic
Well I certainly agree with the good advice to avoid frontal assaults. However, the "should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow or Rostov" is a real long shot against a competent Soviet player in PBEM. Will send some screenshots of Soviet defenses from my ongoing PBEM games to illustrate this.
And I will also do some additional tests and get that info to you. Am running the stats in all games so that data should be coming in to you as well. Am interested in what you are seeing now relative to in how many games Leningrad and Moscow are falling to the Huns.
Well I certainly agree with the good advice to avoid frontal assaults. However, the "should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow or Rostov" is a real long shot against a competent Soviet player in PBEM. Will send some screenshots of Soviet defenses from my ongoing PBEM games to illustrate this.
And I will also do some additional tests and get that info to you. Am running the stats in all games so that data should be coming in to you as well. Am interested in what you are seeing now relative to in how many games Leningrad and Moscow are falling to the Huns.
Walt
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
ORIGINAL: Vic
And I repeat my core advise: avoid frontal assaults if possible.
It should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov or any other towns and then reduce their defenders easily once they are out of supply.
I thought Leningrad was a supply source...?
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
ORIGINAL: Steve110
ORIGINAL: Vic
And I repeat my core advise: avoid frontal assaults if possible.
It should be possible to encircle Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov or any other towns and then reduce their defenders easily once they are out of supply.
I thought Leningrad was a supply source...?
In the latest version when it does not have a connection to Archangelsk or Moscow its supply drops do a measly 200 supply points per round.
Best wishes,
Vic
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
@wardtoch,
Sure thing. Post away! Feedback is always welcome. And 1 screenshots says more than a 1000 words
best wishes,
Vic
Sure thing. Post away! Feedback is always welcome. And 1 screenshots says more than a 1000 words
best wishes,
Vic
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
-
ChuckBerger
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:11 pm
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Wardtoch,
Yep, six Soviet defenders entrenched in a forest hex in reasonable supply and condition (looks like the Soviets had about 4.75 divisions worth of troops) are basically never going to be evicted by infantry assault from 2 hexes. Engineers won't help all that much - they can get rid of fortifications (the fort icon that shows up on the map), but they don't affect entrenchment levels.
If you have no alternative strategy and need this hex to fall, only a Panzergruppe can get the job done. Sure, the panzers are at a disadvantage in the forest, but what really makes the panzergruppen so awesome are not the tanks but the heavy infantry, especially of the SS variety. The recipe for breaking an otherwise impregnable line in this game is to use a fully buffed (command, +attack focus, blitz posture, luftwaffe) panzergruppe, overstacked up to 50%. Use SS motorized if you can, then motorized, and last put in panzers - but also look to see which divisions have a modifier already (for instance for an award, or an attachment) and use them first.
It feel frustrating and "wrong" to have your infantry armies fail. I can only imagine the same frustration was felt by real world generals... Allies getting bogged down in Italy, Normandy and Huertgen Forest, Germans failing to take Stalingrad and getting bled dry, Russians shattering themselves against solid defensive positions in many forgotten battles (Narva, Courland, etc.)
Yep, six Soviet defenders entrenched in a forest hex in reasonable supply and condition (looks like the Soviets had about 4.75 divisions worth of troops) are basically never going to be evicted by infantry assault from 2 hexes. Engineers won't help all that much - they can get rid of fortifications (the fort icon that shows up on the map), but they don't affect entrenchment levels.
If you have no alternative strategy and need this hex to fall, only a Panzergruppe can get the job done. Sure, the panzers are at a disadvantage in the forest, but what really makes the panzergruppen so awesome are not the tanks but the heavy infantry, especially of the SS variety. The recipe for breaking an otherwise impregnable line in this game is to use a fully buffed (command, +attack focus, blitz posture, luftwaffe) panzergruppe, overstacked up to 50%. Use SS motorized if you can, then motorized, and last put in panzers - but also look to see which divisions have a modifier already (for instance for an award, or an attachment) and use them first.
It feel frustrating and "wrong" to have your infantry armies fail. I can only imagine the same frustration was felt by real world generals... Allies getting bogged down in Italy, Normandy and Huertgen Forest, Germans failing to take Stalingrad and getting bled dry, Russians shattering themselves against solid defensive positions in many forgotten battles (Narva, Courland, etc.)
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Over stacking will cause lots more casualties your end.
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Hi wardtoch,
Probably the key element here is the Soviets being a Forest hex which gives them a significant boost (+40% in no rail present, +20% if rail).
The Germans consistently out performed the Soviets in the field but when it came to fighting them in Forests or Swamps it was, more often than not, the other way around.
The Germans recognised early on in '41 that they had a serious deficiency in forest/swamp combat doctrine and experience (western Europe didn't have the heavily wooded forests of Russia) and their policy was to bypass them where ever possible.
The sole German Division in Finland (in the game) historically was assessed by German High Command as being 'ill prepared and lacking proper training for forest fighting' after initial forays.
Cheers,
Cameron
Probably the key element here is the Soviets being a Forest hex which gives them a significant boost (+40% in no rail present, +20% if rail).
The Germans consistently out performed the Soviets in the field but when it came to fighting them in Forests or Swamps it was, more often than not, the other way around.
The Germans recognised early on in '41 that they had a serious deficiency in forest/swamp combat doctrine and experience (western Europe didn't have the heavily wooded forests of Russia) and their policy was to bypass them where ever possible.
The sole German Division in Finland (in the game) historically was assessed by German High Command as being 'ill prepared and lacking proper training for forest fighting' after initial forays.
Cheers,
Cameron
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Hi Cameron and thanks for the reply.
I understand the forest terrain produces a benefit for the Soviets. In regards to that and other bonuses is Steve 101's description of how they are applied (posted above)close to correct?
As stated, I am not here to argue about what is right or wrong, just learn more about how the system is working and make adjustments to game play accordingly. I have attached a picture of my defense of Leningrad in a PBEM and challenge Vic to show me how he would "go around" this and encircle the city [:)].
I have not played any games of any length against the AI and such encirclements may be possible there, but in my view, such will happen very rarely against a competent human opponent.
In any case, I look forward to seeing what you think of Steve's description of the combat engine!
I understand the forest terrain produces a benefit for the Soviets. In regards to that and other bonuses is Steve 101's description of how they are applied (posted above)close to correct?
As stated, I am not here to argue about what is right or wrong, just learn more about how the system is working and make adjustments to game play accordingly. I have attached a picture of my defense of Leningrad in a PBEM and challenge Vic to show me how he would "go around" this and encircle the city [:)].
I have not played any games of any length against the AI and such encirclements may be possible there, but in my view, such will happen very rarely against a competent human opponent.
In any case, I look forward to seeing what you think of Steve's description of the combat engine!
- Attachments
-
- jpeg_dc_3_..grad_rud.jpg (52.51 KiB) Viewed 220 times
Walt
RE: Stacking, Towers of Doom, Combat: WAD?
Followup picture of Soviet defense of Moscow in one of my current PBEM games. Note that 4th PG has been deployed in AGC. I am pretty confident the defense of the Capitol will be successful but will update this thread as it proceeds.
- Attachments
-
- jpeg_dc_3_..ow_N_rud.jpg (46.39 KiB) Viewed 223 times
Walt