Page 1 of 1
Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:12 am
by nukkxx5058
Hi, why can't my units (Germans) attack the enemy units ? Is it because of the river? I have both tanks and infantry.
Is this realistic ? I mean it seems to me that tanks can fire across a river, not talking about crossing it but firing. No ?
In any case, what do you suggest to solve the problem ?
Thanks
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:30 am
by morvael
Attack across unfrozen or partially frozen river requires a lot of movement points. You MP are too low now.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:37 am
by nukkxx5058
OK i see. Will try again early next turn then ... Thanks
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:38 am
by Denniss
Do we have soemthing like a bombardement attack where only artillery fires, being subject of counterbattery fire ?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:26 am
by morvael
Only for on-map artillery units.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:38 am
by nukkxx5058
ORIGINAL: morvael
Only for on-map artillery units.
Could you please explain a bit more ? I haven't seen any arty units that could fire to more than one hex ... Am I missing something ?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:28 am
by No idea
ORIGINAL: nukkxx
ORIGINAL: morvael
Only for on-map artillery units.
Could you please explain a bit more ? I haven't seen any arty units that could fire to more than one hex ... Am I missing something ?
The soviets can build artillery divisions (since 1943, iirc) which are on map units that can fire up to two hexes away. In some scenarios the germans have them also, iirc.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:44 am
by Nix77
ORIGINAL: No idea
ORIGINAL: nukkxx
ORIGINAL: morvael
Only for on-map artillery units.
Could you please explain a bit more ? I haven't seen any arty units that could fire to more than one hex ... Am I missing something ?
The soviets can build artillery divisions (since 1943, iirc) which are on map units that can fire up to two hexes away. In some scenarios the germans have them also, iirc.
On-map artillery brigades are available to be built already in January ’42. First divisions appear in October ’42.
The brigades are not that useful since they don’t upgrade to divisions and don’t really contain that many guns, comparable to maybe 2 regiments. They could come handy if you really want a create concentrated attack, but the 5 AP cost will make you think twice for sure.
Artillery divsions, rocket divisions, heavy rocket brigades and mortar brigades are most likely worth building and important force multipliers for Red Army 2.0.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:46 am
by Telemecus
ORIGINAL: Denniss
Do we have soemthing like a bombardement attack where only artillery fires, being subject of counterbattery fire ?
ORIGINAL: morvael
Only for on-map artillery units.
I assume to some extent end of turn attrition also models this, as an abstraction for artillery engagements which are at too small a level to be represented on the map?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:59 am
by Commanderski
I assume to some extent end of turn attrition also models this, as an abstraction for artillery engagements which are at too small a level to be represented on the map?
When you attack if you look at the Combat Resolution Message you will see which artillery units (on both sides) participated in the attack. Most artillery support units are regiments/battalions and are assigned as support units and not on the map as counters.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:05 am
by Telemecus
ORIGINAL: Commanderski
I assume to some extent end of turn attrition also models this, as an abstraction for artillery engagements which are at too small a level to be represented on the map?
When you attack if you look at the Combat Resolution Message you will see which artillery units (on both sides) participated in the attack. Most artillery support units are regiments/battalions and are assigned as support units and not on the map as counters.
But I assume they are just the normal artillery support of units in combat. The question is what about all those artillery engagements which occur even when ground troops are not advancing and launching attacks. For example I have a game where for one turn when you look at the battle report there were zero battles. If the only time artillery came in to contention were through combat resolutions, then all those smaller artillery units did nothing for a week?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:14 am
by No idea
ORIGINAL: Telemecus
ORIGINAL: Commanderski
I assume to some extent end of turn attrition also models this, as an abstraction for artillery engagements which are at too small a level to be represented on the map?
When you attack if you look at the Combat Resolution Message you will see which artillery units (on both sides) participated in the attack. Most artillery support units are regiments/battalions and are assigned as support units and not on the map as counters.
But I assume they are just the normal artillery support of units in combat. The question is what about all those artillery engagements which occur even when ground troops are not advancing and launching attacks. For example I have a game where for one turn when you look at the battle report there were zero battles. If the only time artillery came in to contention were through combat resolutions, then all those smaller artillery units did nothing for a week?
You take casualties for simply being next to an enemy unit, even if there is no battle. I assume that is due to small scale engagements, including artillery ones. A different thing is if those casualties you take for those small engagements that arent battles are too low.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:25 am
by Telemecus
ORIGINAL: No idea
You take casualties for simply being next to an enemy unit, even if there is no battle. I assume that is due to small scale engagements, including artillery ones. A different thing is if those casualties you take for those small engagements that arent battles are too low.
Yes I suppose the thought in my mind I am pursuing is should attrition intentionally include in its calculation how much artillery the other side has in range, and if/how they use ammo. And should attrition make a special calculation for artillery losses on each side if part of counter-battery fire. So far I have thought of attrition as being sniping or small scale raiding by infantry when lines are static. But if sub-divisional or SU artillery fire (off map) are a significant part of it, as thinking about it it was, this should be much more prominent in attrition calculations. For example should you suffer less attrition if a neighbouring enemy unit is low on ammo? Or is this more a thought for WitE2?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:25 pm
by nukkxx5058
Is the arty handled the same way in WITW ?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:14 pm
by No idea
ORIGINAL: Telemecus
ORIGINAL: No idea
You take casualties for simply being next to an enemy unit, even if there is no battle. I assume that is due to small scale engagements, including artillery ones. A different thing is if those casualties you take for those small engagements that arent battles are too low.
Yes I suppose the thought in my mind I am pursuing is should attrition intentionally include in its calculation how much artillery the other side has in range, and if/how they use ammo. And should attrition make a special calculation for artillery losses on each side if part of counter-battery fire. So far I have thought of attrition as being sniping or small scale raiding by infantry when lines are static. But if sub-divisional or SU artillery fire (off map) are a significant part of it, as thinking about it it was, this should be much more prominent in attrition calculations. For example should you suffer less attrition if a neighbouring enemy unit is low on ammo? Or is this more a thought for WitE2?
Frankly, I have no idea how the game calculates attrition due to proximity to an enemy unit, but it should certainly take into accou thte disparity of forces present as well as other parameters (morale, experi nce, ammo...)
And the game should defintively have some attrition (and not just fatigue) due to movement. For mobile units movement should be an issue. You couldnt move a panzer division for 300 or 400 kms in a week and hope to have no losses due to movement.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:10 am
by nukkxx5058
I'm now in the mud and my panzers can't move. So I decided I won't attack. But I'm troubled by the fact that I can't fire with my arty without moving ... I should be able to do arty barrage, using little MP and few/no oil, precisely when the panzers/trucks can't move on because of the weather/mud. How can have they 'forgot' to model this important aspect of war ?
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:24 am
by No idea
ORIGINAL: nukkxx
I'm now in the mud and my panzers can't move. So I decided I won't attack. But I'm troubled by the fact that I can't fire with my arty without moving ... I should be able to do arty barrage, using little MP and few/no oil, precisely when the panzers/trucks can't move on because of the weather/mud. How can have they 'forgot' to model this important aspect of war ?
They didnt really forgot about it. They just put it into the "attrition for being next to an enemy unit" department.
In quiet parts of the front a gun might fire a few times a day, no more. If the whole front was firing for two or three hours a day they would run out of ammo very quickly (unless ammo had been stockpiled for an incoming offensive). Basically, when there is no battle, you can assume that your artillery fires, but only a few shots a day per piece, enough to keep the enemy with their heads down and cause a few casualties/fatigue (taken into account into attrition) but not enough to make any relavant damage/casualties.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:41 am
by nukkxx5058
OK, makes kind of sense... would have prefered arty to be directly modelled (like in TOAW I think) but if that's it
Doesn't change the fact that the game is great.
RE: Attacking across a river
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:46 pm
by Crackaces
ORIGINAL: nukkxx
OK, makes kind of sense... would have prefered arty to be directly modelled (like in TOAW I think) but if that's it
Doesn't change the fact that the game is great.
Relevant to the initial subject of river crossings .. infantry and armorr suffer a disruption penalty when crossing a river. So mastery of the Support Unut and in particular artillery is key for a successful crossing. Artillery starts at a range, has a rate of fire and a blast factor ( none of which I understand yet) but know that with artillery it’s about disruption. So the river crossers will be disrupted, but if more of the defense is disrupted at the end .. the attackers can carry the day. The other possibility is so much attacker CV that the disruption does not matter ..