Axis OOB/TOE in 1.08

[smokindave34]

Have there been any changes made in version 1.08 (or later) effecting the axis OOB or ability to get replacements? In my axis game against M60 and in my Soviet game against Pelton I'm seeing axis OOB >4 million. In previous versions it was uncommon to see a German OOB that high.

Also, it seems that regardless of the amount of combat my German infantry divisions engage in their TOE stays above 90% - again this seems unusual.

[morvael]

Yeah, the replacement "AI" is now much better at using available resources, so units are not starved artificially. Also the loophole allowing attacking forces to fully refit, because the defender moved back, and then blocking the defender from doing the same, because the attacker moved into contact (unavoidable in turn based game) was removed. You have to kill them, surround them, exhaust them, but you can't count on strange rules do that for you [:)]

[Mehring]

Check the armour too. Used to be 2k German tanks by end of summer '41, max, now twice that. I think the repair rates are more accurate than previously but perhaps too fast?

However, captured equipment like T34s get trashed like the Axis never had factories refurbishing and repairing them. Since you spend arms points on "converting" them, and tanks can be upgraded, couldn't you upgrade, for example, from T34M41 to PzKw 747(r) and enter the latter as a German tank type with a "damaged" and thus repairable pool? You don't go to such effort as this http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=2364 if you're just going to ditch the thing the moment a track breaks.

"Since late 1941, captured T-34/76 tanks were transported to a workshop in Riga for repairs and modifications, while in 1943, Mercedes-Benz in Marienfelde and Wumag in Goerlitz (now Zgorzelec) were also repairing and modifying T-34s as well. Captured T-34/76 tanks were modified to German standards by installation of commander’s cupola, radio equipment along with other non-standard field modifications made during service by the their new owners. Spare parts were never much of a problem and some 300 captured vehicles were maintained on long term bases. T-34/76s tanks were also used as artillery tractors and ammunition carriers." http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkamp ... ervice.htm

[smokindave34]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yeah, the replacement "AI" is now much better at using available resources, so units are not starved artificially. Also the loophole allowing attacking forces to fully refit, because the defender moved back, and then blocking the defender from doing the same, because the attacker moved into contact (unavoidable in turn based game) was removed. You have to kill them, surround them, exhaust them, but you can't count on strange rules do that for you [:)]

Thanks for the quick response Morvael!

[morvael]

Mehring, yes repair after move was introduced, but the radical change in numbers is mostly from including assault guns, tank destroyers, armored cars and sp weapons in that number. German variant of T-34 could be introduced, it's up to Denniss.

[Mehring]

ok, thanks, and I thought I was doing so well, never mind.

I'll draw up and evidence a list of captured vehicles I'd recommend for such treatment. Are guns subject to the same punitive damage penalties? Thousands of guns too, were refurbished and repaired in Axis factories and had ammunition manufactured for them.

The 76mm F22 deserves special treatment. Is there a way of combining a # Pz38(t) or other such obsolete tank with a captured F22 to make any of the AFV built from such compositions?

[M60A3TTS]

You have a 4.2 million man army because of "stuff" like this:

[smokindave34]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

You have a 4.2 million man army because of "stuff" like this:

That certainly helps!

[Mehring]

I'm curious as to just how the Russian managed to scrape together 171,000 men, 2.1k tubes and 355 tanks for one attack in summer 42, when with anything like historical losses, they should be on the ropes. Aren't losses just too low all round?

[Mehring]

Here are three deliberate attacks made in one week against Leningrad. This is Stalingrad type fighting, eventual victory costing the Russians 1 000 000+ casualties though admittedly that may include 10k shot for cowardice.

The attacks were made from 2 hexes by adequately supplied and rested troops at between roughly 90-100% ToE. They included-

1. 12 arty battalions (inc 2x 300mm+ and 1x 240mm Siege guns) + 7 pioniere
2. 12 arty battalions (inc 3x 300mm+ and 1x 240mm Siege guns) + 4 pioniere
3. 14 arty battalions (inc 3x 300mm+ and 1x 240mm Siege guns) + 4 pioniere

Now, I think it's fine that the garrison held out but three deliberate attacks in one week with that sort of support represents pretty heavy fighting. Check the losses and the fort reduction, neither seem right to me.

[Mehring]

...and...

[Mehring]

...and...


The fighting ended with the fort a level 4 at 94%

Overall, I'd say all combat losses are too low at the moment, but nowhere is this more pronounced than with the Russians who begin the war with fully experienced leaders who only need a few APs to get them in the right place.

[musashi64]

I think that Mehring is right, the losses are too low , for so heavy fightings.

Kind Regards

Roberto

[gingerbread]

This rule change was introduced quite a while ago. An additional possibility is that Model is breaking off the attack when it's clear it will not get anywhere, we should import the functionality of displaying the break off range from WitW.

That said, I agree that the casualties are way below Stalingrad levels.

V1.04.28 – June 8, 2011
• New Features and Rule Changes
...
3) New Rule– Added a fire penalty in combat when there is a large number of attacking units.
The force value of the attacking side is calculated using the following values for each nonsupport,
non-artillery division unit attacking:
Corps 15
Division 9
Brigade 5 (unless the brigade has less than 2000 men in which case it is 3)
Regiment 3
Once the force value exceeds 28 there is a chance that elements will not get to fire during
combat. Artillery elements are much less effected (only impacted at closer ranges in combat),
and the chance that elements will not fire increases as the force value increases. In general
though, adding more units should result in more elements firing, but a lower percentage of the
total elements will generally be firing as the force increases. The CV values of the attacking
units are not changed by this rule.

[Mehring]

@ Gingerbread, is the break off something different from the "scouting" result?

Notice that with respectively 7, 4 and 4 full strength Pioniere in the three attacks , the Axis engineer value is given a "1" and fort reduction is minimal. Is this because the engineer value is relative to fort strength or that the Pioniere never engaged?

The rule states artillery is less affected by the rule yet, again all those super heavies never really hurt the fort.

For fort reduction would it be a better tactic to use less combat units from multiple SU stuffed corps, thereby lowering CV but maximising fort destroying SU in the engagement?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

@ Gingerbread, is the break off something different from the "scouting" result?

Notice that with respectively 7, 4 and 4 full strength Pioniere in the three attacks , the Axis engineer value is given a "1" and fort reduction is minimal. Is this because the engineer value is relative to fort strength or that the Pioniere never engaged?

The rule states artillery is less affected by the rule yet, again all those super heavies never really hurt the fort.

For fort reduction would it be a better tactic to use less combat units from multiple SU stuffed corps, thereby lowering CV but maximising fort destroying SU in the engagement?

Yes forts seem much harder to reduce now then before.

The numbers you guys are getting are WAY OFF from my results vs smokendave, you cherry picling?

What game version are u using?

[gingerbread]

I don't know if breaking off is implemented in WitE, that's why I stated possibly. One way to check would be to run the combat with message level 6 or 7 and monitor the combat messages to see if any firing happens at range 50, might as well turn off FoW. It would take a while, I know.

My understanding is that if engineers do reduce the forts, it is with a full level. Since the fort ended as lvl4 & 94%, the conclusion is that they did not have any effect on the forts. The Eng Val is probably FoW, but I have to refer to morvael on how Eng Val & Fort levels interact.

Assuming that the Pioneers did not have any effect on the forts, the reductions were caused by artillery. If the fort started at lvl 5 & 10% (maximum), they scored a total of 8 hits. 2% is the smallest increment in fort%. That's not a lot so I don't think that SU stuffing is the way to go. Pz CV is halved in dense terrain so only infantry will do.

I don't have any good ideas on how to model combat in full urban terrain in a weekly WWII game. The only historical examples I know are Stalingrad and Berlin. My understanding is that most other urban areas were bypassed.

Why is LG being attacked head on here? If it is to find out what will happen, OK but the standard way is to go via 83,16 or 90,12 and isolate the city. Since Soviet SU are included, I conclude that the city is not isolated here. The answer to any and all questions beginning with 'How...?' that asks about attacking non-isolated urban hexes is 'Don't!'.

[Mehring]

@ Pelton

I'm on v 1.08.03

These are the only results I have vs a well defended heavy urban hex but apart from low fort reduction it's comparable with previous attempts in other games. The lack of casualties and fort reduction leave no realistic prospect of grinding through in a month or even more.

However, I notice that German losses attacking other fortified terrain are now significantly higher than previous versions, even when successful, and even yielding higher attacker losses than a retreating/routing defender. I've never seen the latter in previous versions, prior to 1942. Morale and experience seem to impact less than previously, while the 1:1 attack "casualty premium" remains insignificant.

All in all, both sides end up with ahistorical high strengths.

@ gingerbread

I'd rather ask someone who knows than run an entire combat at message level 6 or 7 [>:]

There were a few instances of heavy urban fighting- Rostov 41, Kharkov spring 43 are two, but neither side threw so much at it as Stalingrad or Berlin.

I gave up attacking east of Leningrad over the river. I gacked one attack forgetting MP impact of ice level 1 and failed another, possibly as Tippelskirch took command from Model but both would be subject to the same attack limitations you cite. The level 3 fort was also highly resilient too, as are Osinovets and Sviritsa, to bombing.

Frustrating though it is, to be thrown back at the gates of Leningrad where instant conquest was previously a given, in a simulation taking the city should be bloody difficult.

The attacks did put the Leningrad industry out of action and yes, I wanted to see what would happen.

[Gabriel B.]

the Valkyrie divisions should arive empty and draw replacements from german manpower pool , ( 328, 329, 330 and 331)
but thats just around 70,000 men

[morvael]

My idea is to reduce fire penalty for too many attacking units when fighting for cities and/or high level forts. Battles will be bloodier.

Gabriel B. is this a scenario data issue? Please notify Denniss and add some rationale.