Combat Planning & Results

[Logier]

I'm really enjoying the operational feel of this system, both for scale and its supply network.
Only one gripe about the terrain - pretty bland and difficult to sometimes distinguish.
My posting concerns combat resolution as I'm struggling a bit with committing level of resources to gain required results.
I guess I'm looking back to the days of CRT stuff, although I appreciate the multiple factors which contribute.
Any help with more precise planning for combat operations would be much appreciated.

[bobarossa]

Just returned to this game after several years. One thing this game doesn't seem to do is factor in the readiness of units when displaying power factor of units on the map. The later games do this. Try to attack from opposite sides as this really boosts the concentric attack bonus. I think adjacent non-attacking units from same division may boost divisional integrity bonus. Also pay attention to enemy morale as low values may make them quit early or break.

Also try not to exceed the allowable power factor on attack by very much. You take an X/2 % penalty to attack power where X is the attacking power minus the allowable power. This is the 145/70 (for example) you see where 145 is the attacking power and 70 is the allowable power (in this example for attacking from two sides; i think it is 105 for three sides). In this case you get a (145-70)/2 = 37.5% attack penalty. Try playing with fog of war off and look at the detailed combat results at end of a battle.

[Logier]

Again that all makes good sense. I do appreciate the "divisional integrity" consideration as well as the "kessel" approach.
One other point concerns use of airstrikes and artillery. I notice that the AI tends to spread artillery, while I was thinking concentration on key stacks.
Finally, how advantageous is the combination of both air and artillery ? (akin to the "old" CRT odds shift)

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Logier

Again that all makes good sense. I do appreciate the "divisional integrity" consideration as well as the "kessel" approach.
One other point concerns use of airstrikes and artillery. I notice that the AI tends to spread artillery, while I was thinking concentration on key stacks.
Finally, how advantageous is the combination of both air and artillery ? (akin to the "old" CRT odds shift)

Divebombers excell at taking out enemy armour + guns where artillery is better used against soft targets. A combination of these 2 arms can fully prepare a hex for ground assault.

Furthermore there is a seperate combat stack limit (like discussed above) for land, air and artillery. So if you are faced with a particularly well defended hex the most effective approach is to max out air stack attacks, artillery stack attacks before ground assault.

So there are special cases where combining them works well.

However for example a small infantry only unit would not suffer more from 2 artillery attacks than 1 artillery + 1 air attack. (presuming equal strenghts there of course).

Best wishes,
Vic

[Logier]

That's great Vic. In fact due to the advice gathered I've since worked my way through 'Case White', as both sides (not campaign yet).
France '40 looks pretty daunting in terms of unit density. I'd have welcomed a couple of lesser scenarios. For example like the Holland one.
After 'Blitzkrieg' I'm looking forward to 'Barbarossa'; with maybe 'Case Blue' to follow in sequence.
As for future offerings, I'd welcome a 'Campaign in North Africa' - but I'm sure you've heard that before !
Thanks again [:)]