Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Strela]

Clearly you can do it that way.

But the question remains, should defenders below 10 men always be able to fight off a assault by 180 men ?
Is there something wrong with the broken status ? Should defenders that were already broken and took additional casualties during a assault become broken ?
Is it a good idea to give bunker hexes their own suppply source which prevents them from becoming isolated ?
Is the "Finishing Off" rule working correct and should it maybe get expanded a bit ?

You are asking a lot of 'mechanics' questions here while ignoring some of the points Gregor is making.

Gregor was one of the play testers and has laid out one of the fundamental things we looked at - speed of advance. Make bunkers etc too tough and the attackers will get nowhere, weaken them and they fall like flies. It has been a fine line balancing it all and in the main we believe it works.

In answer to your questions, I have seen many occurrences of assaults sweeping away sub 10 defenders - I have not seen occurrences where the finishing off rule is not working as I would expect. That said, you are best to leave a retreat route for defenders in bunkers. Do NOT isolate them if you want to push the defenders out quickly. There is much more chance of forcing a retreat than destroying enemy units in situ. Isolating a bunker forces the defenders to stand and die and you're now at the vagaries of cleaning them out - better to get them in the open and shell them to death.

Broken does seem to be a rarity, but in testing I've seen it happen pretty regularly when units have been pushed to the edge.

Supply sources in bunkers is a very deliberate artifice. These bunkers were usually either extensive with significant local stockpiles of ammo and food or known to hold out for a significant period of time after the landings.

The bunker debate raged when Kursk came out. It's worthwhile looking at Dog Soldiers replays here or revisiting the threads from Kursk re attacking bunkers.


David

[wiggum]

Isolating a bunker forces the defenders to stand and die and you're now at the vagaries of cleaning them out - better to get them in the open and shell them to death.

Or realistically - forces them to surrender.
I thought surrendering was abstracted into the assault casualties thats why these results feel odd.

Broken does seem to be a rarity, but in testing I've seen it happen pretty regularly when units have been pushed to the edge.

I dont know, a unit which lost 75% of its strength, is already disrupted and takes additional casualties and still not becomes broken seems the majority.
In Squad Battles Units could get pinned. In Panzer Battles there is Disrupted and Broken. Only broken prevents units from moving towards the enemy. I think it should happen a bit more often, currently units in PzB take a insane or unlimited (because broken status never occurs before the unit is completely eliminated) amount of beating before they bog down (broken status).

[Dog Soldier]

Wiggum,

I would not worry so much about small units that are shot up but not broken. There are ways to deal with them if the other guy gets aggressive with them. They die like flies then if you are prepared.

Dog Soldier

[Xaver]

I have here a question about engine... is possible link the units defending a bunker hex strenght % with his chance to be overruned???

I refer test an optional rule that made that if all units defending an hex with a bunker are under... 50% for example they count like isolated and maybe add some stacking point like hex needs be under 75 to have rule effect working, the idea is made bunker positions capable of be taken by brute force because not allways is possible isolated them specially in bunker defensive lines.

The problem is that bunkers are very strong positions, not by bunkers, usually more for all the extra defensive positions BUT in the moment the position suffers attacks and garrison is reduced usually is more a "booby trap" than a true block to attacker... i refer that enough big defensive positions could be penetrated and be opened even when not all garrison is dead, they are alive, are not a problem to attacker but could molest them.

Now bunkers are a problem but not a lot because armor is present in both titles but in future... if you release titles more focused in infantry combat... and same if in PzB we see heavy urban fight.

[ComradeP]

Unlike what Strela suggests, I would always Isolate defenders whenever possible. Just make sure to give the defenders a valid retreat hex (not in your ZOC) if they're all disrupted to force them out of their bunker. The drop in quality from isolation makes it easier to remove them due to increasing the chance that they'll disrupt.

Unless there is a special rule that makes isolated defenders less likely to disrupt, Strela is also incorrect that isolated units are more likely to hold out, as like I mentioned above they lose a quality level when isolated which makes them more likely to disrupt.

Assaulting is a harder than in PzC due to there being fewer penalties that are imposed on the defender, such as there being no Low Ammo state. Bunkers with their own supply hex are difficult to clear.

Like when the debate on assaulting in Kursk started, I still disagree with Strela, Dog Soldier and it seems Gregor that assaults are always working as intended. Infantry-only assaults can still be very, very difficult, whereas in real life the infantry did most of the assaulting. It's worth noting that minefields in Kursk were artificially weakened to allow the Germans to have a chance to attack at a somewhat reasonable pace as was mentioned around release.

In my recent 5th of July game against Dog Soldier, Das Reich and Totenkopf both launched primarily infantry-centered assaults that went nowhere for high losses because the infantry just isn't capable of dealing with stacks of defenders. One of my bunker stacks also only fell on the final turn after being fired at for several hours.

In Kursk, it's A quality attackers against C/D quality defenders. In Normandy, it's B/C quality attackers against A/B/C/D quality defenders. A quality infantry units in particular are in my opinion still a bit to strong in terms of firepower compared to lower quality units, which combined with casualties being "the other way around" from real life as in the game direct fire causes far more casualties than artillery makes attacking dug-in A quality units challenging at best.

As "bunkers" and "pillboxes" are a catch-all, one size fits all categories, a log bunker has the same defensive qualities as the defenses of the Atlantic Wall and the Soviet defences at Kursk that took months to prepare.

[phoenix]

I would certainly second what Comrade P says about casualties apparently being 'the other way round' to in real life - ie it seems that arty is particularly ineffective compared to direct fire.

Is this a hard thing to tamper with - ie does it involve lobbying JT himself - or is it a function of the parameters data?

Peter

[Strela]

Unlike what Strela suggests, I would always Isolate defenders whenever possible. Just make sure to give the defenders a valid retreat hex (not in your ZOC) if they're all disrupted to force them out of their bunker. The drop in quality from isolation makes it easier to remove them due to increasing the chance that they'll disrupt.

Unless there is a special rule that makes isolated defenders less likely to disrupt, Strela is also incorrect that isolated units are more likely to hold out, as like I mentioned above they lose a quality level when isolated which makes them more likely to disrupt.

Assaulting is a harder than in PzC due to there being fewer penalties that are imposed on the defender, such as there being no Low Ammo state. Bunkers with their own supply hex are difficult to clear.

Hi,

For clarity, my comments regarding isolation are related to leaving a retreat path. If you can push far enough beyond the bunker line and leave a retreat path and also isolate the defenders, then go for it. This is rarely the case with players more likely to put a unit either side of a bunker, isolating it but not leaving a retreat path. I thought that was self evident, but obviously it was not.

My comments related to isolated units being more likely to hold out is again directly related to NO retreat path. Units will hold in place and lose 50% of their strength if obligated to retreat and are not able to.

My recommendation to players who are trying to take the FIRST bunker out in the defenses is to not try and 'close' isolate it but to rather focus as much direct fire on it with the aim of a clean disrupt and then assault followed by a retreat into a valid hex. Hard attacks (direct & indirect) have a higher chance of disruption on units in bunkers & pillboxes and that's what you should be striving for as a first effort.

The low ammo/low fuel impact not being in play was deliberate as it was argued (as was the case with Kursk) that most bunkers had sufficient food/ammo for at least a day. Taking a two step drop in morale for isolation immediately was tipping the balance too much in testing on Kursk and we continued the same rationale into Normandy.

David

PS I hope some of you are playing the scenarios beyond D-Day because it appears you are damning the game based on one aspect - bunkers, that are in play for the first day scenarios. That would be a huge disappointment for me and would to be honest, require a fresh look at what breadth we would provide in any future games. Having seen posters in other forums damn Kursk based upon perceptions they had picked up from this forum, I'm disappointed to see the same sentiments and posts here that Normandy has flaws in its overall execution. Myself & the team have played the game a lot and believe that some of the current fixations are misguided and you're missing the focus of the game. I'm starting to believe that we have built a simulation that is too complex for most and the subtle interplay of units types, fire strengths, terrain and opportunity fire is too much for the average gamer. If that's the case, I'll pull back two steps and make a decision on the validity of any future projects. Please view this not as a knock on any commentary, it's welcome, but for me there is a strong trend apparent that is indicating we have failed to build something that is logical to players.

[Strela]

I would certainly second what Comrade P says about casualties apparently being 'the other way round' to in real life - ie it seems that arty is particularly ineffective compared to direct fire.

Is this a hard thing to tamper with - ie does it involve lobbying JT himself - or is it a function of the parameters data?

Peter

Hi Peter,

Artillery is devastating against units in the open/light terrain. it is useless against bunkers/pillboxes. Direct fire is a good all rounder but artillery will usually trump it when hitting units in the open.

The Allied artillery is stronger than the German to represent both the volume of ammunition as well as the improved spotting capabilities (including air).

David

[Ricky B]

I have little but my thoughts to contribute to this subject, overall. First, has anyone played Omaha to the end yet, against the AI (or HTH but I would expect that to take too long to be done already)? I played that one probably 5 times against the AI and a couple of times HTH to try and get it right. From all of my plays, even early on, I found that it played very historically in both timelines and where the action unfolded, finding it frequently ended with a similar situation at the end to what the US found them in at the end of the day. So to me, that was always a good indication that the Bunkers played just about right.

Now that was a year ago that I did that testing and minor tweaking. It is possible something changed that led to issues with bunkers being too hard tough now, but only a play through to the end will mean anything to me.

As to 10 men stopping 150+ engineers, I just have to say sorry, it happened. Just because you order these men to assault doesn't mean they were going to swarm in there like the elite German engineers did in the wonderful movie Stalingrad, shoulder to shoulder, and try to overwhelm the defenders, however few. The men will go to ground when taking fire, and depending on the situation begin to work out a relatively safe way to move in and eliminate the problem. But that takes time.

I agree a unit that started with 100 men is often not going to put up much fight when down to 10, but again, it happened. Especially in a fight such as this, what happens in a different area is going to have little impact on the forces fighting in a different area of the complex. And the way the finishing off works, it is fewer than 10 men, not 10%. Someone up above mentioned it maybe not working correctly based on it being under 10% I believe, and that is not how it works.

By the way, there were some bunkers at Omaha that were abandoned by their German army defenders at nightfall. These were small groups that fought all day without quitting, probably because the attacks bypassed them.

Anyway, appreciate the discussion, my only thought, and it is really more based on play since the release, is that the higher morale formations do seem to avoid disruption too long - the lower morale units don't though, I know from playing the Germans in Cherbourg! I never really saw that in testing, but maybe because most of what I tested was the US/Allied in the scenarios I worked on, and there seemed to be plenty of disruptions.

My guess as to the lack of broken units is that, to break, it must reach max fatigue. I think most units are destroyed before max fatigue is reached, so maybe it is as simple a change as to double fatigue or something, to bring in more disruptions and broken units - I see lots of yellow fatigue units but rarely a red, so rarely a chance of reaching the point of breaking. This may need tweaked, but I don't know what drives that, I think it is internal to the engine rather than a parameter.

Rick

[Dog Soldier]

In my recent 5th of July game against Dog Soldier, Das Reich and Totenkopf both launched primarily infantry-centered assaults that went nowhere for high losses because the infantry just isn't capable of dealing with stacks of defenders. One of my bunker stacks also only fell on the final turn after being fired at for several hours.

Infantry only assaults against bunkers and pillboxes without supporting AT fire reap only casulaties if the defender occupies the position in strength.  Better to flank and winkle the defender out of such strong positions or bring up proper combined arms support if the position has to be taken.

It is a fool's errand in a historical context as well as in the PzB games to make frontal infantry only assualts against bunkers and pillboxes unless they are weakly held like in the Normandy Utah Beach scenario.

I would add some context to what ComradeP said about the recent game we played of the PzB Kursjk scenario 0705_01 II SS PzK - July 5: The SS Attack.

 One regiment each of Das Reich and Totenkopf both launched primarily infantry-centered assaults that were feints to tie down significant Soviet units that could otherwise have moved to the point of the LAH attack or harrased LAH from its flanks.  These were never intended to be secondary thrusts.  The feints worked as planned.

To see how this game unfolded visit the PzB AAR forum.
DS vs CP PzB Kursk 0705_01 II SS PzK July 5 1943 SS Attack

Dog Soldier