(...) tested LSiA with adjusted AD and MRPB settings; works like a cahrm. If a defender uses 'ignore losses' all the time, the units literally will fight until death. So, no more single Italian Btl who can stall a 2x Div+ assault for more than 2-3 weeks!
I'm interested in knowing more. Can you be more detailed?
Well, the 'ignore losses' effect is simply negated by the fact that you have more battle rounds. I adjusted LSiA to a AD of 9 (as a guideline full-day/turn AD = 14, half-week/turn AD = 4); to refelct the nature of the combat in Tunisia. MRPB set to 3. If you set your defenders to 'ignore losses' they hold out; but when they are constantly attached in one turn, even with minimize-losses attacker settings, they birn supplies, they get disorganized at some stage; so, yeah... the boys will get overrun and removed.
Thanks for reply. However still have some doubts...
1) I don't consider the "ignore losses" effect as a problem. The rationale behind this consideration is:
- When you face a "ignore losses" defender on defend status (or even entreched) your attack forces can make it retreat if, of course, your attacking forces and fire support are clearly adequate for the job (in strenght and equipment quality).
- When you face an "ignore losses" defender on fortified status your attack can't make it retreat even if your attacking forces and fire support are clearly adequate for the job (in strenght and equipment quality).
2) MRPB is usefull but not essential. As a general rule i can get 4 or 5 rounds out of a "normal" turn without MRPB. As you know this is possible by optimal attack micro-management (timing and attacker losses settings). The question is: i agree you can cause the tiny fortified defender a lot of losses (even dramatic losses) but in the end of "endless" attacks the defender will remain on the spot and your best chance is to try next turn hoping RBC will work. Most of the times if the "red" and weak defender is still on fortified status RBC will not work...
3) I never tested changing the AD. In theory it makes sense and might turn things a bit more realistic. But AD have effects for both sides. The defender might suffer more (eventually making it retreat) but the attacker will suffer higher losses also.
Am i right?
< Message edited by Sekadegas -- 2/22/2012 7:33:15 PM >