Tutorial 1/2 advice

[Zumwalt_446]

Greetings all,

I am currently playing through Tutorials 1 and 2 and have some questions about the best strategy for these scenarios. What seems to consistently happen is that my units are able to achieve kills on the majority (if not all) of the Soviet tanks and APCs, but the infantry units are then able to overwhelm my tanks and IFVs with ATGMs and SPG fire.

I have noticed that the rate of kills inflicted by my units goes down substantially once the main Soviet vehicles (tanks/APCs) are destroyed or fallen out, which seems somewhat counterintuitive (that is, I would expect mechanized/armored units with active vehicles to have a significant advantage over dismounted infantry without fire support). Similarly, calling in CAS appears to disproportionately damage vehicles over dismounted infantry, when one would again expect, if not the opposite, at least more equal damage. This means that (as I understand it) the fighting potential of the Soviet force actually goes up when its vehicles are destroyed, as opposed to decreasing.

There also seems to be an issue with how the game handles situations in which a unit is down to its last component; in these situations, an infantry unit with a single heavy weapon may be under fire from multiple armored units and infantry but will not be eliminated. I have observed this in all terrain (wooded/urban/open), so I am unsure if this is related to the cover/concealment value or other mechanics.

Any feedback or comments on these points would be appreciated.

[WildCatNL]

There also seems to be an issue with how the game handles situations in which a unit is down to its last component; in these situations, an infantry unit with a single heavy weapon may be under fire from multiple armored units and infantry but will not be eliminated. I have observed this in all terrain (wooded/urban/open), so I am unsure if this is related to the cover/concealment value or other mechanics.

The fewer individual sections and vehicles remain intact (in a location now populated with smoking wrecks and craters), the harder it is to spot these remaining sections and vehicles (as long as these don't engage). And when not spotted, these sections and vehicles cannot be engaged with direct fire. This happens sooner in locations offering good concealment (forests / built-up terrain). Also note that a 500m hex (approx 500 x 500m) is a large area, where a single vehicle of a few squad can easily dug-in and be impossible to spot unless you send a unit into the thex.

I have noticed that the rate of kills inflicted by my units goes down substantially once the main Soviet vehicles (tanks/APCs) are destroyed or fallen out, which seems somewhat counterintuitive (that is, I would expect mechanized/armored units with active vehicles to have a significant advantage over dismounted infantry without fire support). Similarly, calling in CAS appears to disproportionately damage vehicles over dismounted infantry, when one would again expect, if not the opposite, at least more equal damage. This means that (as I understand it) the fighting potential of the Soviet force actually goes up when its vehicles are destroyed, as opposed to decreasing.

I would need to see screen shots to give a better answer. My first guess is that while your forces whittle down tanks and IFVs, they still allow hostile infantry teams to close in within ATGM range of your forces. Your forces generally have a long range fire and mobility advantage, but do not act to preserve that advantage by not moving back in time to reestablish a stand-off range larger than ATGM range. It's your force's advantage that diminishes in a Soviet combined arms meeting, not Soviet forces being more effective due to losses.
(Again, a guess, without seeing your battle).

[Zumwalt_446]

And when not spotted, these sections and vehicles cannot be engaged with direct fire.

That makes sense, but brings up another point: does the game have any capability to model suppressive fire (i.e., fire towards a location with a suspected enemy presence, but without spotted units)? I would imagine that the ability of ATGM/SPG teams to operate successfully would be affected by M240/.50 bursts directed at their location.

My first guess is that while your forces whittle down tanks and IFVs, they still allow hostile infantry teams to close in within ATGM range of your forces. Your forces generally have a long range fire and mobility advantage, but do not act to preserve that advantage by not moving back in time to reestablish a stand-off range larger than ATGM range.

This is likely what is occurring; my forces were dug in in static defensive positions close to the two objectives and I did not proactively move them further to the rear as the Soviets advanced.

Regarding my point about airstrikes being (seemingly) more effective against mounted vs dismounted units, does the game model dismounted infantry as spread out (as opposed to point targets)? If so, this would obviously affect the probability of a single munition achieving a mission kill on a dismounted unit, while increasing it if the unit is all in a single vehicle.

[WildCatNL]

That makes sense, but brings up another point: does the game have any capability to model suppressive fire (i.e., fire towards a location with a suspected enemy presence, but without spotted units)? I would imagine that the ability of ATGM/SPG teams to operate successfully would be affected by M240/.50 bursts directed at their location.

Unspotted units deep in a 500m x 500m hex cannot be suppressed with direct fire. Indirect fire is your only means (as a commander) to reach deep into the hex. Alternatively, put smoke on the hex to reduce the ability of the unspotted hostile units to report your units' positions.

Regarding my point about airstrikes being (seemingly) more effective against mounted vs dismounted units, does the game model dismounted infantry as spread out (as opposed to point targets)? If so, this would obviously affect the probability of a single munition achieving a mission kill on a dismounted unit, while increasing it if the unit is all in a single vehicle.

The game models units being dispersed (deliberate or assault movement, any static action in the hex) or moving as a column (move hasty) in the hex. This affects indirect fire and airstrikes.
In addition, the game models mounted and dismounted movement. In first case, dismounts are inside the vehicle and take damage when the vehicle is hit. In the second case, the dismounts are away from the vehicle, and vehicle and dismounts can be hit or missed independently.
The game models individual shells, bombs (and even bomblets from ICM and cluster bombs) when processing indirect fire and airstrikes against units (individual vehicles and dismounts or passengers).

[Zumwalt_446]

Noted; thanks for the responses regarding this.

I just replayed Tutorial 2 with your feedback in mind and was able to achieve a Marginal Victory (with my forces holding the northern NATO objective due to proximity and the rear NATO objective due to the Soviets not having penetrated that far). The primary change I made was to issue my units Screen instead of Hold orders so that they maintained an appropriate standoff range from the Soviet infantry.

I did notice that almost all of the main attacking force in the south stacked into a single hex (on the final hex before entering the urban tiles around the northern objective); even keeping your comment about the dispersion of dismounted units in mind, I still was somewhat underwhelmed by the impact of my artillery in that hex, given that there were multiple large infantry formations within that 500x500 area. Again, I could be missing something about the situation or what the game models, and if so would appreciate being corrected.

[SgtZdog]

I still was somewhat underwhelmed by the impact of my artillery in that hex, given that there were multiple large infantry formations within that 500x500 area. Again, I could be missing something about the situation or what the game models, and if so would appreciate being corrected.

Currently the first couple of salvoes do most of the damage in a barrage (though we're working on revising the barrage modeling that may change this behavior). The other thing is that it is pretty easy for it to look like there are several large WP units in a hex, when it's really primarily a bunch of the smaller attached units like AD and AT teams with their organic transports. A WP battalion will typically have at least a couple of these and especially at things like bridges can get bottled up creating what appears to be a large stack, but is actually only about a company in strength and mostly consists of hard to hit dismounted infantry. And sometimes it's just not your day and the artillery doesn't do well. It's also worth noting in this scenario your only artillery is just 2 light mortars, so not exactly the most devastating barrages. (By contrast I think WP is bringing a full 6 tube battery of medium mortars?)

[Zumwalt_446]

The units in the south in this case were the motorized infantry units of the MRR (infantry, Metis, HMG squads, etc.). The AD/AT units have consistently taken the northern route to the objective.

I see your point regarding the lower caliber/quantity of NATO artillery in this case; however, I still feel that the combination of CAS, tanks/IFVs in defensive positions, and artillery should inflict greater damage (and possibly more "stopping power") than actually occurs.

[SgtZdog]

An important consideration is that the units you the player sees is the combination of all your assets' intelligence. So you might have a unit able to detect and identify and enemy based off the observation of some of the squads/vehicles in the enemy unit, but when it comes to shooting, they are only able to see those individual subunits. This means you the player get identification of the entire enemy unit, but your guys are only able to kill a fraction of that. This is extremely apparent in situations where you have a smaller enemy unit (generally less than 10 subunits) and your guys take a shot killing one of them that causes you to lose visibility of the enemy unit entirely.

Put another way, the player gets to see the combination of intelligence, not just the directly observed enemy, but your guys can only engage directly observed enemies (barring indirect fire of course).

[Zumwalt_446]

All,

Thanks for the information regarding this. One last consideration I would like to bring up (as always, I may be missing a mechanic that is actually implemented):

From my reading of the manual, unit size impacts spottable range, but not spotting range. That is, a unit with one vehicle/infantry pair has the same probability of spotting enemy units as a unit with ten pairs. However, the enemy units would have a much harder time spotting the one-vehicle unit. If this is the case, there is an advantage to the smaller unit in that it has the same spotting capability regardless of the actual coverage of its sensors (that is, for enemy units in an adjacent 500x500 m hex, the game does not take into account the probability of an encounter changing according to the density of troops in the friendly hex).

Is the above a correct analysis?

[WildCatNL]

From my reading of the manual, unit size impacts spottable range, but not spotting range. That is, a unit with one vehicle/infantry pair has the same probability of spotting enemy units as a unit with ten pairs. However, the enemy units would have a much harder time spotting the one-vehicle unit. If this is the case, there is an advantage to the smaller unit in that it has the same spotting capability regardless of the actual coverage of its sensors (that is, for enemy units in an adjacent 500x500 m hex, the game does not take into account the probability of an encounter changing according to the density of troops in the friendly hex).

Is the above a correct analysis?

Correct. The game is geared toward mechanized combat of larger units. It does support small recon / observation posts which typically wouldn't be spotted, and would spot a lot. Adding more eyes wouldn't necessarily spot more.
That game mechanic can be debated (as can the use of deterministic spotting vs probabilistic spotting).

The thing we're debating in the dev team related to this is the behavior of small left-over parts of a unit (say a single squad) staying behind in a hex surrounding by the enemy; it continues to provide perfect intel on nearby enemy instead of being demoralized and considering surrender. It's here where this spotting capability of small units has an impact on gameplay.

[Zumwalt_446]

I would definitely agree that the spotting mechanism as-is has a significant effect in those cases. I just encountered this from the other side (playing "Brothers in Arms" from the NATO side) when one of my PzGren units was down to its last squad but tied down (at times) up to four WP MRR companies in an urban area. This was despite being out of its long-range ATGMs and only having Panzerfausts and small arms.

In this situation, the priority for WP is to penetrate to the rear NATO objectives; the failure of the WP units to move through the town meant that I was able to first defeat the eastern prong of the attack before shifting my forces to the west. In other words, this mechanic generates unrealistic results relative to actual combat (which would likely see a small portion of the company split off to contain the PzGren unit while the remainder proceeds south).

Screenshot below.

single unit.JPG (277.18 KiB) Viewed 782 times

single unit 2.png (272.96 KiB) Viewed 783 times

[WildCatNL]

I would definitely agree that the spotting mechanism as-is has a significant effect in those cases

It's not the spotting mechanism that is preventing the WP MRR companies from running through or bypassing the urban area. It's their SOP settings or the objectives set for them (by the scenario designer or computer player) that make these MRRs stay around the town.

A different spotting mechanism at best would reduce the amount of artillery coming in on the WP MRR companies, for better or worse. In some cases, small units have stayed behind and have called in artillery/air support with great effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji , two six-man reconnaissance teams from the 1st Marine Division were trapped in Khafji ).

We agree on that we'd like to see the MRR companies focus on their main goals.

[Zumwalt_446]

Appreciate your bringing up Khafji; that is definitely something I had in mind when considering the artillery/CAS aspect. And I definitely agree that the WP units can be made to pull out earlier by setting the withdrawal percentages higher via SOP. But even then, the Marines weren't deliberately engaging the Iraqi forces with small arms, but rather calling in artillery to reduce the chance of their being discovered by the enemy.

The way some hex and counter games handle this (not saying this is necessarily the best approach) is through a "forced move" of defending units under certain circumstances (primarily when the attacking force outnumbers them by more than a certain amount); this would add in a human element and prevent units staying in the fight until being completely destroyed.

My understanding is that the Soviet doctrine specifically addressed situations like this by designating first- and second-echelon forces, with the first echelon being focused on achieving penetration while the second echelon performs "mopping-up" operations on bypassed units.