Damage dealt to small units

[Dog Soldier]

FWIW, my troops in the game eat small units for breakfast. It is also called 'mopping up'.

In every scenario I've played thus far, I've noticed that small units below a certain number of men (50-60 or so) take significantly less damage from assaults, artillery and in many cases direct fire.

The artillery losses on small units should be insignificant. Indirect fire is wasted against a small unit. This is realistic. Just because there is a game counter in the hex, it does not mean the troops, vehicles or guns are spotted down to the last man. In game theory, the counter represents that we know a unit is there, what the game shows about that unit and that is it. The last survivors are not coming out and holding up signs for you take them out. A failed assault could mean your troops were unable to locate the few enemy suspected to still be there. That is what is being simulated when the assault fails to secure the hex. Snipers are still there. The area (hex) is not secure.

As far as I can tell, the mechanics behind this behaviour for non-artillery fire are not documented, but it does seem to be happening consistently. The only modifier to casualties that's mentioned in the manual is for the stacking limit starting at half the stacking limit (125 men, casualties normal and fire value at 100%) up to the stacking limit of 250 men (casualties double and fire value at 200%). It's almost as if there's also a third modifier, for half of the first value, so about 60 men.

I cannot say this is correct. I have been with this game since the beginning when Strela took on the project. I know of no small unit modifier.

The alternative indirect fire rule mentions casualties being inflict on units "proportionate to their strength" which presumably explains the lower artillery losses for smaller units, but it isn't clear how it works or how it is determined.

Artillery fired in an indirect role is resolved against units "proportionate to their strength". If the result is a 10% loss, one of ten men is hit. No mystery here. When attacking a small unit, indirect artillery fire is a clumsy and wasteful way to try and 'mop up'.

It can be problematic when assaulting small units, as often positions end up being held by a handful of guns or a couple of men who refuse to disrupt. As disruption is all that matters, small units can have an ahistorical impact on progress.

It has been said that the results supposedly model small units taking cover or not exposing themselves, but there is no explanation about that in the manual, nor does it make sense for assaults. If you have 10 men and the enemy has 100, you're very likely to lose. In the game, that isn't necessarily the case.

This ties into the main flaw of the assault system: it depends solely on getting the defenders to disrupt, which is a matter of chance and not skill, and encourages manipulating the assault system by either placing numerous small units in a hex (with each unit, the chance of the stack disrupting lessens) or by breaking larger units down to achieve the same thing.

As the attacker depends solely on a die roll for getting the defenders to disrupt, and in the case of large stacks also uses the same stacking limit, such situations can cause disproportionate delays to attacks. Direct fire from infantry units can yield reasonable casualties, but it doesn't work against bunkers.

Just not true in my experience. Disruption is not always required. One has to develop a feel for this, I know. Many PzC veterans already know enemy units can be assaulted successfully without first being disrupted. Disruption makes the job of clearing an enemy unit from a hex more likely to occur. It does not guarantee that result. I have seen both ends of this spectrum occur in all the games I have played. Some good order units can be cleared by assault. Some disrupted units refuse to give up the ground. War is so unpredictable. I like that the PzB Kursk game models this aspect of battle. Better make sure you have a plan B for each move you make.

In a current II SS PzK July 5th game, if my opponent decides to place the Guards sapper battalion in the north in the objective and supply bunker hex and split it up in 9 different units, that alone will probably mean I'll lose the game regardless of anything else that happened, simply because it is very difficult to counter such a strategy as the attacker. Yes, you can use direct fire from tanks, but the casualties you inflict are really not that great from two hexes (which is where you need to be firing from in this case, as the objective hex is also a village hex that will soon be reduced to rubble, requiring assaulting infantry to be next to it) and even if I'd fire at it from an adjacent hex, the odds of disrupting 9 units are not good.

You can only assault with an equal number of men at best, the defenders are not isolated because their hex is a supply source (this is also why I don't like objective bunker hexes having their own supply sources) and in this case they have a good organic assault value themselves. The result will probably be quite predictable.

For vehicles, the small units taking less damage situation means that one or two vehicles can survive and keep taking out your vehicles whilst you have to spend an again disproportionate number of units to deal with them.

Game turn on its way. I will play the II SS PzK side in #0705_01 II SS PzK - July 5: The SS Attack, default optional rules. Use the Soviet engineers to man the bunker supply point at Bykovka as you suggest. There is no way of either side to guarantee victory in any PzB Kursk scenario. Some things work out to one side or the other side's favor as the situation develops. Every situation and each playing of a scenario can be different.
Win or lose I will post an AAR of the game. You are welcome to keep notes and screen shots to participate in the AAR if you like.

In the current Gresnoye game against Landser34 for example, he has a Broken and isolated T-34 unit with a single tank sitting somewhere that is essentially invulnerable. Assaults by 90 men motorized Rifle units have no effect, and neither do attacks from anywhere between 30 and 50 T-34's or an assault by 12 T-34's. It just won't die. This occurs regularly, it is by no means a unique situation. In another game, a single gun holds against an assault by two PzG platoons.

For me personally, this is where a large part of the frustration of playing the game that I sometimes experience comes from: there seems to be an undocumented mechanic or a mechanic not necessarily working as intended, which results in strange behaviour which results in ahistorical events and which has a disproportionate effect on the results of a battle.

No position is invulnerable. Some are tougher than others. Some take more time to reduce. Some are very tough if one tries to crack the defender's with the wrong tools.

Dog Soldier