Combat Results Issues

[Scarz]

Let me start this thread by saying I am enjoying the game, its simple (in concept) and rather entertaining.

However, there are some things that flat don't seem to work with the combat mechanic.

First, units can bang away at each other turn after turn, with little gain. I see this most often in Russia. The Germans can have three armies all attack a city being held by a Russian unit and very little is accomplished. Cut the city off and its a little better, but can get similar results. But, one German bomber unit can obliterate that same unit in the city.

Same for fighting in the open. Very little is accomplished with units firing away, but bring in the airforce and units disappear quickly.

I like the idea of the air units reducing unit readiness and softening up defenders, but it seems too much. In fact it seems the only way to take positions. Even the artillery units can't compare.

Then units in ports, they seem overly strong and well supplied even when isolated. In the example I uploaded, this poor infantry corps attacks turn after turn, gets one hit or so, but no real progress against this Russian HQ. If I sent a bomber unit over it would be eliminated quickly.

Then there are the examples of units that are fairly well supplied that get wrecked by other ground units. The hardly put up a fight and are eliminated quickly.

In all I guess my complaint is that there is little consistency in results. Maybe if you really dive into readiness and supply state it can all be figured out, but for such a simply game that shouldn't be required to understand or predict results.

Is anyone else seeing these types of things?

[Capitaine]

One thing to remember is that air units reduce entrenchment levels. Not sure about them completely destroying units in cities in one go, however.

[Sugar]

In all I guess my complaint is that there is little consistency in results. Maybe if you really dive into readiness and supply state it can all be figured out, but for such a simply game that shouldn't be required to understand or predict results.

I don`t think this to be an "easy" game, although it`s easy to learn.

Combatresults depend on readiness, supply , experience, weather, HQ-connection and national morale (although both impact the readiness), attack- and defensevalues of units, terrain and level of entrenchement. Nearly every terrain provides some boni for the defenders, rivercrossing halves the enemies losses.

As for a typical WWII-game, you`re success is achieved at best by "combined weapons warfare". Every type of unit has it`s own functioning: tact. bombers and artillery reduce entrenchement and morale, tanks and special forces reduce morale, levelbombers and paratroopers are able to cut off supply lines, infantrycorps can secure the flanks, infantryarmies can also attack.

As you already noticed, you`ll have to use a combination of all types of units to take stronpoints. Attacking with infantry/artillery only will result in heavy losses and no gain, as it was typically for WWI.

Combine tanks, mechanized, specialforces, bombers, fighters, infantry and artillery into a taskforce, led by a high ranking HQ. Concentrate on destroying enemy units and occupy towns, cities and other supply sources.

As a defender you can use anti air units (as well as equipment) and fighters to protect against air strikes, dig in units in woods, hills, mountains, towns and cities, at best behind rivers. Keep tanks, mechanized and specialforces back to counterattack, and place your HQs even in the back.

Neither the success of the attacker or defender are guarantied (depending on luck sometimes), nor the survival of single units. But you can make your opponent pay a high price for his achievement.

You`re right if you describe singled, unexperienced and not to an HQ connected units to be wiped out without enemy losses, especially in Russia against a highly trained and experienced Wehrmacht. I try to avoid this by trading land for time, to gather forces in favourable terrain.

Hope I could give you some hints in your subject.

[jgsIII]

Combine tanks, mechanized, specialforces, bombers, fighters, infantry and artillery into a taskforce, led by a high ranking HQ. Concentrate on destroying enemy units and occupy towns, cities and other supply sources.

A taskforce? I must be missing something in my game because I don't see how to stack units together to create a taskforce. Can anybody enlighten me?

[jgsIII]

In all I guess my complaint is that there is little consistency in results. Maybe if you really dive into readiness and supply state it can all be figured out, but for such a simply game that shouldn't be required to understand or predict results.

Is anyone else seeing these types of things?

I do see these type of actions where an tactical bomber has swooped in and nearly completely destroyed a full strength, well supplied infantry corp with HQ support. My theory is the Brits developed tactical nuclear weapons somewhere around 1940 and just didn't tell anybody.

Joking aside I do see anomalies in combat as described by Scar23 and others that I just can't reconcile with historical combat in any war.

[johanssb]

Considering a corps might be anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 men...

Second Battle of Kharkov, 12 May–28 May 1942: 300,000 casualties

Kharkov was a strategically important city in the Ukraine that had seen fierce fighting in the autumn of 1941, when the Germans captured it. The following year the Red Army launched a major offensive to retake the prized city. Unfortunately for the Red Army, the Germans were still very much active in the area and were able to call upon forces to launch a strong defense and counter-offensive. The Germans encircled the three Soviet armies and effectively destroyed them. In a devastatingly effective operation, the Germans wiped out nearly 280,000 Russian men and 650 tanks. A disaster for the Soviets, the Second Battle of Kharkov pressed home the importance of staying on the defensive to the Red Army and inflated the Germans’ confidence — which many saw as playing a part in their downfall on the Eastern Front.

[Leadwieght]

Supply is key. A unit in a hex with zero supply will be VERY ineffective, even against intrinsically weak units.

In the screenshot that you posted of the German corps attacking the Russian HQ in the island port, the corps is feeble because it's a zero supply hex (supply doesn't extend into islands, even if you can cross over them from the mainland)
It's not that the HQ is exceptionally strong because it's in a port.

[woverby1963]

I see this kind of thing especially in Russia. I will surround and cut off a german unit completely and hit it turn after turn with 3 or 4 units and only my units take punishment, i do very little damage to a completely cut off surrounded unit for several turns. This seems a little unreal, a unit completely surrounded with no supply should be easier to eliminate after several turns, they are actually very strong, even in open terrain. To me seems like a bug, but maybe others have some input on that.

[Guderian1940]

I would guess that these results are against the AI. A human vs Human would have very different results. Just to keep this in mind. From my experience the AI and the Human play in completely different. Just saying if you get frustrated with the AI. The German Human vs human juts rolls over anybody in the first couple of years. I find the AI cheats a lot [:)] just to make it a challenge.

[woverby1963]

Unfortunately this is a human vs human game, it is 1944, russian infantry level 2, national morale was pretty good, russian units are worthless. I can outnumber, out quality, have them cutoff and completely surrounded for several turns and the german units hurt me, i barely scratch them. It seems like the german units are pretty well invincible, in the west is pretty much the same but at least i have airpower there and it does do some damage. Coastal guns in France are ridiculous, surround them cut them off and they will hold you off for turn after turn . Im thinking the game is still needing some work in this area, or im just a whiner maybe, i cant really tell.
Bill.......

[Guderian1940]

Bill you are correct. It is not you. Germans are hard to kill and kill you easily as the Russians or anywhere in the early years.

Supply is an issue. In just every game I have ever played when a unit is surrounded it loses supply. However if you have an HQ and a town you are not out of supply just reduce to pretty much the normal level. You have to make a lot of mistakes to get surrounded at Stalingrad and lose.

[sPzAbt653]

Post #3 hits on the subject of bringing proper assets to each battle and knowing what affects the combat results. I only play against the computer so I cannot speak for HvH, but I don't see anything inconsistent with combat results. I do agree that Air Units have too great an effect on Ground Unit losses.

[Leadwieght]

Against a human player, defending the USSR is VERY hard in 41-42, but it can be done. Before Barbarossa, the Russians MUST invest in Inf Weapons research as soon as they can scrape together 200 MPPs. Then Inf Warfare, then Anti-Air. IMO, nothing else really matters for your immediate survival. As for units, I try to purchase the second Engineer unit, but otherwise just buy Garrisons and Inf Corps and set up speedbumps everywhere. The Wehrmacht should NOT be allowed to just walk into any town without having to stop and fight. There seems to be little effect on the USSR's National Morale from losing scads of cheap units.

I'm also more and more inclined NOT to take any actions by the Western Allies in 39-41 that lower Russian mobilization (i.e. Anti-Communist repression or the Finland Intervention). The Russian pretty much have to do the Winter War vs. Finland (or Leningrad will be very vulnerable), but if the Allies successfully intervene, the drop in Russian mobilization is devastating. And since the Germans can easily afford to spend some diplo to bring Finland back to an Axis leaning, you can end up with the worst of both worlds.

Before and after Barbarossa, use the Brits to distract the Germans and Italians where you can with amphib raids. The Axis has a lot of coastline.

Despite what the manual says, the Red Army's chances of launching a damaging counter-attack are very low in 41 or early 42. You MIGHT be able to pick off an isolated German unit that's gotten too far ahead, but don't count on it. Stubborn defense is really your only option.

One of the problems with the game is that almost no Axis player will make the two crucial mistakes that Hitler made in 41--halting the drive towards Moscow in August in favor of the Kiev encirclement and then resuming it in November just in time for General Winter to take command. Nothing you can do about that. The only good news is that in SC3, as opposed to the historical conflict in Russia, the German player will almost certainly try to keep a broad-front offensive going in 1942. That's when they may overstretch themselves.

[Guderian1940]

One thing I have noticed is the high randomness of tech, combat, scripts which have a major affect on the results of your choices. You cannot count on every game having the same situation whether you use the same strategy or not. As far as strategy goes Leadweight is correct with that as a very good option however depending on the above the results will be varied. I have had 2 inf, 2 AA Russian and the Germans kept on marching through them. Investing in Tech and upgrades results in fewer units available to cover all those towns and cities. A lot of units to kill results in high German experience levels. If the German concentrate on an area they will do what ever they want. You hope they stretch themselves which allows for some resemblance of defense. Also the skill level of the players!!!

42, if Moscow is not taken then concentrate to take it then Leningrad amd Stalingrad. Not much you can do against a concentration of a 1/2 dozen panzers and TAC air.

This games has a lot of choices. Which makes it interesting but requires a lot of games before you grasps the nuances of each strategy. A successful Russian defense is not a given. Almost worth going to the Urals, pray and wait for the USA.

[sPzAbt653]

You cannot count on every game having the same situation whether you use the same strategy or not.

And this is a great thing, right ?

Almost worth going to the Urals, pray and wait for the USA.

I guess you joke, but if you do go back to the Urals, the USSR ends up with about 150 MPP's/turn, and that is not enough !

[Scarz]

Thanks for the great input, I'm glad its not just me seeing these issues in how the combat seems to work. I am trying not to whine too much, but as with all fine things, it can be made better with a little help and the game seems to me to need a little refinement.

For one, the planes are just flat too strong. As the Germans, I practically can't take an isolated city in Russian without them. They swoop in, do 2-3 damage, sometimes more, and then the city falls to a ground attack or two. However, that same Russian unit will hold out almost indefinitely to repeated ground attacks.

I also don't get how an isolated city gives supply to units inside it. Maybe a little, but when isolated, the city should run out quickly. Same with ports, which are even worse. There needs to be a way to blockade the port. A unit in a port can hold out much too long...especially when the seas around the port are controlled by the besieger.

[Scarz]

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

Supply is key. A unit in a hex with zero supply will be VERY ineffective, even against intrinsically weak units.

In the screenshot that you posted of the German corps attacking the Russian HQ in the island port, the corps is feeble because it's a zero supply hex (supply doesn't extend into islands, even if you can cross over them from the mainland)
It's not that the HQ is exceptionally strong because it's in a port.

Yes, the corps may very well be on the low side for supply purposes in the example pictured.
However, the HQ is isolated, well not really because its in a magic port,
but I controlled the waters around it and the front was well to the east.
I guess I can attack the port with the German navy trying to reduce it,
but that will cost me a strength point each turn for little gain.
I guess instead I can just use that HQ as a training ground.
My unit does a point of damage each turn and gains experience.
When it hits level 3 I will bring another unit over for the training course!

[Sugar]

You may even block the port by ships without attacking, this will reduce supply in port and town every turn by one.

[sPzAbt653]

I am trying not to whine too much ...

But really you seem to be indicating a possible lack of understanding regarding Supply and Reinforcement. If you hadn't seen it yet, maybe this will help:
tm.asp?m=4192467

There is also a thread on taking Malta in the War Room.

In your first post you show an isolated HQ, and they are a little different because they can usually always reinforce, but not to full strength because they are limited in how many replacements they can have per turn. However, you also stated that bombing it would help in eliminating it, so why not bomb it and move on !

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Scar23
For one, the planes are just flat too strong. As the Germans, I practically can't take an isolated city in Russian without them. They swoop in, do 2-3 damage, sometimes more, and then the city falls to a ground attack or two. However, that same Russian unit will hold out almost indefinitely to repeated ground attacks.

Seems your conclusion doesn't match your facts. Needing planes to take a city because without them you can't doesn't lead to the conclusion that "planes are too strong". This is likely WAD -- working as designed -- because the system desires to encourage "combined arms" for combat success. Historically, close air support was a big deal in WWII. So I can't agree with you here.

Your other point has some merit, but again there are methods (combined arms again) to achieve victory against those targets. Again, planes aren't too strong when flying against ports. Have you attacked Malta before?