Defense vs Offense

[Sgt Barker]

For example, if I had a WWII infantry battalion with three companies and I was going to assault an enemy infantry company of similar numbers, morale, equipment, etc. that was in a treeline dug-in and I was crossing open ground, I would not necessarily believe that I had the suggested 3-to-1 odds (remember WWI) and would try to find things that would improve my odds (like maybe the use of lots of smoke to hide my movements). Yet, in the game, this would generally be more than enough power to win the battle.

Interesting to set up and play out. With 8 levels of fortification (Dug In up to Pillbox, with 2 levels of each ), though I do think that there is a level of fortification that would hold off the attacker in the above scenario. Perhaps it's the level of fortification at issue here. Whether or not non-Engineer prepared field fortifications (the first 4 levels, which can be created in game by anyone) would be enough to let a company hold off a battalion, or more importantly whether it should be able to, is also at question.

The scale of the game, IMO, means that use of terrain, smoke, etc, is factored into combat. It's probably (not being a designer I don't know), assumed that all attackers have the ability to make the best use of such things. That in itself does make the offense more powerful than defense - the defender sits in one place and shoots. The attacker has all the tricks of modern technology, and initiative as to approach and timing. With 1km hexes I just don't see that the game should assume that a company moving up onto that ridge and digging in is also capable of clearing fire lanes and/or bore sighting all possible approaches and things like that.

(Just coming off a game of N44 I wonder if the designers made the beaches 200% casualty terrain to reflect this type of thing. The Germans are dug in, and where the Allies have to land is a kill zone. That makes sense, but if so it's a reflection of months of preparation, not the ad-hoc digging of trenches.)

Point taken about 3:1; it's exactly what I was driving at, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky about it. Old notions die hard, and I just think that in an environment with everything from knives to 500 pound bombs, and civilians to battle hardened, commando trained veterans, determining what "3 to 1" means is so subjective as to not be that useful.

[Dog Soldier]

Well I guess everyone's experience is different in the games in this series. Andrew seems to have the direct opposite experience than what I have seen in the Salerno and Anzio scenarios of S43. My experience was the well dug in Allied positions behind wire and mines backed by artillery slaughtered the Germans by the boat load. In the scenario depicting the last German push to crack the Anzio perimeter, the Germans are barely able to penetrate the front line Allied positions.

Cap Cav's comments about 3:1 superiority resulting in an overrun of a defensive position just doesn't seem to fit with my experiences. To have the proper defensive attributes Andrew and Cap Cav are talking about, I assume they are referring to undisrupted defending units.
It is not common in my experience that undisrupted defenders are routed from their positions by a mere 3:1 odds assault. Not without a huge morale / BF difference.

Disrupted defenders, by definition, have a reduction in fire control, leadership, and in general a lessened ability to mount co-ordinated fire to repel an assault. Fortifications in the hex do not matter once the defender is disrupted, (read that as pinned if you like) and unable to mount enough firepower to stop an assault.

So if you think it is too easy to assault undisrupted defenders, I would have to say in my humble experience that is not the case. Large numerical superiority is required against an undisrupted defender. By numerical superiority, I mean assault to defense values. In K42, it takes two full regiments of a Russian infantry division to cause a favorable result against a single German company in a bunker that is not disrupted. Even then, the outcome is not certain and several of such assaults are required to reduce the German position. This general experience seems to hold in other games in the series. (see R42 for example)

Andrew's comment on maneuver...
" In fact I would argue that as things currently stand you don't actually need to manouvre that much."
What maneuver is at this scale is different to each player. Operational maneuver is getting more units lined up against a smaller or weaker defense in a hex or two. I think Sgt Barker in this thread referred to that as local superiority.

Then there is tactical maneuvers, which is pretty much simulated in your head at this scale. I consider when attacking, moving into a position where the defender receives fire from opposite sides of the hex, "minimal surrounded" is a a sign of good maneuvering at this scale. Such an attack splits and confuses the defender's fire resulting in a defending position to become untenable. Attacking from only two adjacent hexes is the same, IMHO, as a frontal assault. And this is not likely to work at only 3:1 superiority against an undisrupted and organized defense.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of defensive fire. The AI is not a great defensive fire program. There is another thread here that does point out well that the manual defensive fire optional rule does make for a very different game due to the phased approach. I would submit that in my turn as the strategic defender in a scenario, careful choices of which units fire in my turn, is also "defensive fire". When you see the "attackers" weak return fire, controlled now by the AI, I would contend there is no need to enhance the current defensive fire.
True, some units do not fire in my opponents turn, no matter how much I yell at the screen "SHOOT THEM!". This is esp. true of Russian and French units that seem to think is not correct to shoot back unless they are first disrupted. So polite of them.
It is really satisfactory when the attacker does get a disruption from my defensive fire on some of his units. I try to give such enemy units extra attention and work them over even more in my turn if possible so they do not easily rally and return to the fight after my defensive turn.

end :soap:

Dog Soldier

[Mike Abberton]

[FM WarB]

In other words, if you are in a full strength fortification, then any direct fire out of it would have twice the probably to disrupt, unless the adjecent enemy unit (target) is also in a full strength fortification.

Excellent idea. This represents attackers "hitting the dirt," which causes a unit reduced firepower, slower movement, less cohesion. It's an improvement over the old "pin" combat result which was known to stop attacks dead.
Something like this might be ported to Nappy and ACW games where the offensive advantage is even greater than PzC.

[Andrew]

Nice elegant solution. Agree wholeheartedly.

Re Dog Soldier's post -
My Anzio experience was a bit traumatic. We played the campaign starting with the initial landings so as the Allies I could dig in, but no mines or wire. The Germans when they got strong enough just lined their battalions up against my full strength dug in battalions and with their high morale and high firepower slugged it out with fairly even casualty rates. After a while the Allies were ground down to the point that any fresh Germans were able to easily assault their way through the line. The only thing that kept me in the game was the casualties and disruptions caused by my massed artillery. The IP's and trenches didn't really help. I am not sure I will ever recover from the feeling of helplessness as my brave boys were shot to ribbons..............

[CptCav]

You have my vote Volcano Man.

Regards,
CptCav

[Aaron]

Volcano man always has the goods.

Aaron

[Arimus]

Ironic that I was just contemplating the placement of a MG company and thinking that the game does not simulate the advantages of being dug in on defense well.
Defenders should get an increase in firepower and be harder to disrupt based on the level of fortification and the moral of the unit. An untrained unit will not take advantage of a defensive position as well as a fully trained, veteran unit.
However, the biggest problem I have with the system is the way defensive artillery fire is locked into a percentage of regular fire by the parameter data file regardless of the conditions on the battlefield. Pre-registered fire was very important in WW II and cannot be fully simulated by stockpiled units.

[Andrew]

Glen,
You out there? Any thoughts?
Rgds
Andrew