Balance discussion/suggestions

[Dog Soldier]

Butovo's not too difficult to win in my opinion, it might actually be too easy.

All you need to do is outflank the town from the west, where there are only a handful of Soviet units, capture the supply VP that the Soviets can't possibly defend against a concentrated assault and move into the town to capture a few victory hexes.

It's one of the scenarios where how you advance matters a lot. If you move into the town, you might run out of time. If you outflank the Soviet positions, the Germans will win most of the time.

I disagree that Butovo is an open an shut case as ComradeP suggests.

The missing piece here is to be aware of the soft ground conditions in this scenario makes a broad flanking maneuver take too long.
The Soviet defense can shift using the principle of interior lines faster to the flank threat than the Germans can make that threat. End result is that by the time the Germans get past the few Soviet units delaying their grand single flank move, they reach the village to face the full strength of the garrison strongly holding the objectives in bunkers that the Germans need to win.

FWIW, anyone who wants to show me how very wrong I am can score an easy ladder win on me. Send me your first Axis move of #0705_09 Butovo - The Gatekeepers of Cherkasskoye. Default optional rules.

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

But the garrison holding the bunkers in the village can only do so using the same principle as in Gertsovka: the attacker is forced to stick to the same stacking limits as the defender, so the defenders can just pile units into a hex and significantly reduce the chance the hex will be taken.

Unfortunately, two other problems that also appear in Gertsovka can also influence how the scenario ends. If the Germans can kill the mortar unit, they'll get a fairly easy minor victory. If the Germans lose a single Stuka and thus 6 points, victory becomes much more difficult.

When I defended, I moved units into the town and stalled for time. I won but it wasn't really due to any superior tactics, more due to the mechanics holding the Germans back.

The scenario isn't an automatic win for the Germans, but the 50 point supply objective and the 10 point clear terrain bunker mean at least a draw is far more likely than in Gertsovka. Add a single other objective to that and minimize losses and you've won. The Germans have one reinforced battalion more than in Gertsovka whilst the Soviets only have about an additional company of infantry.

[Dog Soldier]

But the garrison holding the bunkers in the village can only do so using the same principle as in Gertsovka: the attacker is forced to stick to the same stacking limits as the defender, so the defenders can just pile units into a hex and significantly reduce the chance the hex will be taken.

So there should not be equal stacking limits for attackers and defenders in a scenario? I do not understand where you are going with this idea.

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

If a scenario has a limited number of bunker objectives that need to be held to be won by the defender, like Gertsovka or Butovo, equal stacking limits make taking those objectives very hard for the attacker.

It's the same problem PzC has with some of its smaller scenarios, where the defender can place large stacks on crucial objectives and sacrifice them because unit points are worth less than objectives or hold the objectives because they're supply sources (this also applies to one of the objectives in Gertsovka).

Any Gertsovka game, including ours, has shown what this problem can do to a game.

You were of the opinion that bunkers can be taken with proper tactics at all times.

I was of the opinion that in the scenario the Soviets could put most of their forces in a handful of bunkers, making it unlikely that all of them would disrupt. When you look at the mechanics, your loss was predictable. It had very little to do with the tactics of either of us.

This is actually one of the few wargames where the attacker is forced to stick to the hex stacking limit when attacking, and it can cause problems. It's one of the design decisions that I still don't really understand, particularly for PzC where replacements can cause defending forces to regain strength rapidly. The Soviets have no realistic way of removing a nearly full strength German battalion from its position by assaulting it most of the time, unless they apply ahistorical amounts of force for the timeframe (in Moscow '42) or have the time to fatigue the unit in a situation where the Germans can't bring in reinforcements.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm having success and failure at taking bunkers. I think the biggest problem is the hidden units that have an extremely uncanny ability of fire discipline. With the size of the hexes, there would be stacking limits as you can only squeeze so many men and or tanks in that size of an area and the more congested it is, the higher your casualties would most likely be. Even elite units can suffer a lack of fire discipline, it only takes on soldier to give away the units position and again, with the size of the area involved, it can't be that easy for all these units of different quality to have such an elite fire discipline. I don't mind disrupting every unit in the hex before assaulting, which is still not a guarantee for success as the stronger the units, even though disrupted, could still possibly hold the hex.

[ComradeP]

I don't mind disrupting every unit in the hex before assaulting, which is still not a guarantee for success as the stronger the units, even though disrupted, could still possibly hold the hex.

From what I've seen thus far and what the manual states, as long as the attacker is undisrupted the defenders will automatically withdraw when they are disrupted. You might need multiple units as the attacker, but with A quality units anything bigger/better than an MG platoon tends to do the trick.

I have seen situations where a fatigued unit that was down to B or C morale failed to take the hex as it disrupted, so it's certainly possible. With a small attacking unit, you'll also still sustain fairly serious losses (compared to total unit size).

Actually killing units with assaults is more difficult than with direct fire. It's somewhat counterintuitive that firing at a depleted unit is the best way to kill it most of the time. I've seen numerous instances where an assaulting attacker didn't even cause losses to a small unit with a handful of men left.

[Strela]

I don't mind disrupting every unit in the hex before assaulting, which is still not a guarantee for success as the stronger the units, even though disrupted, could still possibly hold the hex.

From what I've seen thus far and what the manual states, as long as the attacker is undisrupted the defenders will automatically withdraw when they are disrupted. You might need multiple units as the attacker, but with A quality units anything bigger/better than an MG platoon tends to do the trick.

I have seen situations where a fatigued unit that was down to B or C morale failed to take the hex as it disrupted, so it's certainly possible. With a small attacking unit, you'll also still sustain fairly serious losses (compared to total unit size).

Actually killing units with assaults is more difficult than with direct fire. It's somewhat counterintuitive that firing at a depleted unit is the best way to kill it most of the time. I've seen numerous instances where an assaulting attacker didn't even cause losses to a small unit with a handful of men left.

Hi,

I'd be interested to understand more of what your seeing here. My general experience is that I can kill more with an assault than direct fire.

If your comments are correct, this is a strong reason to not include an inverse modifier for hex density for units below a particular size.

David

[ComradeP]

I'd be interested to understand more of what your seeing here. My general experience is that I can kill more with an assault than direct fire.

If your comments are correct, this is a strong reason to not include an inverse modifier for hex density for units below a particular size.

What I commented on was actually the reason why I'd favour higher or at least somewhat more "averaged" (to iron out the extreme cases of very few losses or high defender losses) assault losses and lower the direct fire losses, to bring them closer together. Currently, the majority of my non-air/artillery losses when defending come from direct fire, not assaults.

The size of the assaulting attacker is also important. I, and my opponents too, tend to assault disrupted platoons with 1-2 platoons and even though the disrupted defenders are often D, E or F quality, they might still hold out fairly well.

A test of an A quality PzG company of 142-144 men vs. a C quality Guards Rifle platoon of 50 men in the clear in Gertsovka.

Direct fire results for two shots (similar MP cost to an assault) average about 17-18 men, the lowest I've seen in 20 tests is 10 men and the highest 27 men. The results are fairly predictable and are usually 17-18 or higher. I usually take 2-3 losses, depending on if a mortar fires in support. The defender disrupts about 50% of the time, but even if it doesn't disrupt, if it takes 27 losses it's not really combat capable anymore.

Assault:

Odds 126:31 with modifier of 50.

Casualties

Attacker/defender, including defensive fire:
6/14
5/6
4/20
6/25
3/23 D
6/15 D
6/5 D
4/8
6/19
4/7
6/12
6/16
6/7
6/21
5/26 D
4/25
1/21
4/6 D
11/13
5/18 D

Average attacker losses: 5
Average defender losses: 15.
Disruption: 30% of the time.

It's a small test, but my experience with the game thus far gives me the feeling it's representative. I'd be happy to run a test with 100 results for both forms of attack if necessary

At first glance, the results might look similar, but there are crucial differences.

For starters, assaults are more costly to the attacker in terms of losses and fatigue. They also seem to attract more support fire from defenders or artillery. You might feel 2-3 additional losses are not much, but multiply that by dozens of attacks and your losses rapidly start to mount.

Another thing to note is the far greater variability in assault results compared to direct fire results, where you can consistently expect to get 17 or more losses (or perhaps 15 and more to account for grass) on the defender for most direct fire actions. Keeping in mind that the defender has no protection in the case of the test, you can see that results can become minimal for units in bunkers in villages.

That is the problem I have with the assault system when it comes to its effect on gameplay: due to the significant variability in results, you're essentially just rolling the dice and tactics don't really matter. After all, the 5/6 result was caused by the same unit as the 5/26 D result. All I did was load a save and click the resolve assault button again, the unit placement and conditions were identical.

Due to that variability, removing units from defensive positions becomes a mostly unpredictable affair. Some unpredictability is good, but this kind of unpredictability greatly influences the scenario's results when you have to assault units in bunkers. As you can't fire on units in bunkers with most units (or you can fire with 1 hex HA range units, but the low hard attack makes it inefficient), you have to rely on assaults. The situation will improve somewhat if Stuka units are less vulnerable so they can support you, but air support isn't always available and you will probably not have enough air support to help with every assault on a bunker position.

When you're assaulting, you're often committing the attacking unit to the assault for the rest of the turn unless the assaulting unit happens to start adjacent to its target and it has enough MP's to move. With direct fire, you have more flexibility. You can fire once, and then decide to move another unit in or move the firing unit elsewhere and still have enough MP's to move at least 1 hex most of the time.

Even with such a big difference in odds, the defenders also hold the attacker fairly well all things considered. Another reason to use direct fire when possible, as it tends to disrupt the defender more often (possibly because there are 2 disruption rolls instead of 1).

I don't expect the Guards Rifle platoon to fold immediately, but less variable average losses and a higher disruption chance would help without making Soviet defensive position untenable when paired with lower direct fire casualties for smaller units.

[Strela]

ComradeP,

Thanks for the test. Let me mull over the implications of what you've presented here. I'll go back and delve deeper into the calculations that are happening around both styles of attack.

David

[Bayes]

Hi ComradeP, I guess you already know this, but it is very easy to reduce variability of assault outcomes:

Optional Assault Results – when this rule is selected, each assault result is
calculated as the average of two normal assault results. This has the effect of
reducing the variation in results.

I personally prefer high variability because I think the game becomes more intense when assaults are an unpredictable and dangerous affair. Maybe such high variability is more realistic too? Much safer to fire at a forest position from afar than storming right into the forest… Much less control, and much easier to get surprised with the latter approach… Bombarding the position into disruption with direct and indirect fire, cutting retreat opportunities, and then assaulting is the way to go… Would not that be the case in real-life too?

Making assaults similar to direct fire would make the game more "flat" and "one-dimensional" in my opinion. You would lose a very exciting decision scenario: Should I apply direct fire once more to further soften up the defender, or should I go ahead with a more risky assault. If you assault too soon, it could end in a disaster, but you do not want to wait too long either because of time constraints. Finding the correct time to assault is one of the challenges of playing the game.

Direct fire and assaults should be different tools, suitable for different situations, just like it is in panzer campaigns.

That being said, maybe assaults have become too tame in Panzer Battles compared to Panzer Campaigns (relatively to direct fire):

Panzer Battles: Combat Losses (per 1000 combat value):
Fire Low Value: 20 Fire High Value: 100
Attacker Low Value: 50 Attacker High Value: 250
Defender Low Value: 25 Defender High Value: 150

Panzer Campaigns: Combat Losses (per 1000 combat value):
Fire Low Value: 10 Fire High Value: 50
Attacker Low Value: 40 Attacker High Value: 200
Defender Low Value: 20 Defender High Value: 100

Strela, it would be interesting to know why you reduced the relative effect of assaults compared to direct fire in Panzer Battles...

Bayes