Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Compass Rose]

Nice find Chris; thanks!

[GerryM]

It seems that the game is giving historical results but it does seem strange that a few men can hold off for so long against the odds. They would have surrendered in RL. The ideas of having to leave a retreat square etc. seems artificial. I think these units would surrender. Maybe that can be compensated for by the attackers losing more as they approach these key hexes.

It seems to me that most of the same mechanisms exist in JT games (fatigue, disruption, etc). Maybe this games needs something different to model it correctly. Getting the right end result does not mean the mechanics are correct.

David I am sure you are very frustrated with us. But people will stop playing games that need unusual actions to get a result. And the game has a lot of potential plus the number of titles that could come out are huge.

[Xaver]

Well, real life is not a rock paper scissors game... usually few lose VS more BUT not allways.

In a game like this give room to see "unespected" situations is ok IF they are not the average situation... i refer that few men can hold a bigger enemy BUT to be fair you can see examples of exactly oposite... for example see Eben Emael case, not allways a heavy defensive position is strong, could be a rat trap even with enough soldiers.

For me in game one thing in bunker war (and extensive to urban warfare) could be made arty more capable of be a fatigue dealer... see arty allways dealing fatigue, more in light defenses and less in heavy defenses but allways increasing target fatigue... with this to mortars and even direct fire infantry/antitank guns could be more usefull to in combat.

Maybe one negative point in game here is the lack of "facing", not only in armor, in defenses to because usually bunker positions are less capable to defend VS attacks from not expected areas and well, not allways bunkers are the best "active" defense because many times are simple areas to hide from enemy arty... pillboxes are other history.

I am curious if is possible made bunkers/pillboxes less effective VS direct assaults from diferent areas something like a increased chance to force defenders evacuate position when attack come from 3 or more areas, in the end more than destroy defenders attacker only wants open an attack route...

PD: i know in game there is facing but only is used in certain gun units to simulate the naval arty emplacements.

[panzerde]

Unlike others, I've yet to play a beach landing scenario. There are other aspects of the Normandy campaign that I'm not as familiar with and haven't played as much as I've played the landings in other games, so I'm playing more of the later scenarios. I'm coming away with a very different impression of the game, or at least the bunker aspect than I think others are.

I've played for many hours now (been taking vacation) and entirely scenarios like Le Mensil, Cristot, Operation Martlet, Hill 192, Villiers Le Sec, and Carpiquet. Nearly all of these have some sort of defensive positions in them, and most are manned by SS or FMJ units. Now, I'm a long time Panzer Campaigns player, and my natural inclination is to roll up on these positions, blast them with artillery, expect them to disrupt fairly quickly and then assault. I tried that and drew back a bloody stump.

After doing some reading, both here and other places and asking a few questions of David about the game and a lot of practice, I've come to understand that taking a fortified position is very possible, can be done with reasonable losses, and requires good timing and a combined arms approach. In fact, the more I learned to implement the sort of tactics that were actually used and started really using terrain to my advantage, the better luck I've had. I'm finding the entire thing to be very realistic as I compare it to actual narratives of these battles.

If you think artillery isn't effective, try Carpiquet against a human opponent, or just give Operation Martlet a try, even against the AI. I've seen a single artillery strike against a platoon take out ten men with one shot, and then six the next, and I've seen that more than once. Troops in the open can get murdered by artillery. I just played Notre Dame and took out a unit of limbered infantry guns with two field artillery salvos. It isn't great against bunkers, but against lesser fortifications and units moving in the open it is pretty effective.

The Panzer Battles games are not forgiving games, and often not easy games. I do think they model WWII combat at this scale better than pretty much anything I've played including Campaign Series, my previous favorite grand tactical WW2 game.

[Xaver]

Well, i talk about arty value over defensive positions... here in game, i dont see bad reduce a little the kill factor in arty over infantry IF deal more fatigue, see for example mortars, out of lay smoke are a little useless, at least the 50-60-81mm models.

Arty was the main infantry killer in war but it needs time and/or concentration to do his job but in short time a few arty rounds could have a great impact in defenders if attackers use the moment.

[GerryM]

Unlike others, I've yet to play a beach landing scenario. There are other aspects of the Normandy campaign that I'm not as familiar with and haven't played as much as I've played the landings in other games, so I'm playing more of the later scenarios. I'm coming away with a very different impression of the game, or at least the bunker aspect than I think others are.

I've played for many hours now (been taking vacation) and entirely scenarios like Le Mensil, Cristot, Operation Martlet, Hill 192, Villiers Le Sec, and Carpiquet. Nearly all of these have some sort of defensive positions in them, and most are manned by SS or FMJ units. Now, I'm a long time Panzer Campaigns player, and my natural inclination is to roll up on these positions, blast them with artillery, expect them to disrupt fairly quickly and then assault. I tried that and drew back a bloody stump.

After doing some reading, both here and other places and asking a few questions of David about the game and a lot of practice, I've come to understand that taking a fortified position is very possible, can be done with reasonable losses, and requires good timing and a combined arms approach. In fact, the more I learned to implement the sort of tactics that were actually used and started really using terrain to my advantage, the better luck I've had. I'm finding the entire thing to be very realistic as I compare it to actual narratives of these battles.

If you think artillery isn't effective, try Carpiquet against a human opponent, or just give Operation Martlet a try, even against the AI. I've seen a single artillery strike against a platoon take out ten men with one shot, and then six the next, and I've seen that more than once. Troops in the open can get murdered by artillery. I just played Notre Dame and took out a unit of limbered infantry guns with two field artillery salvos. It isn't great against bunkers, but against lesser fortifications and units moving in the open it is pretty effective.

The Panzer Battles games are not forgiving games, and often not easy games. I do think they model WWII combat at this scale better than pretty much anything I've played including Campaign Series, my previous favorite grand tactical WW2 game.

Can you tell us the approach you used in a scenario that has Trenches, no bunkers. Artillery and Mortars had no effect in Clipping the Hedges - Hill 285 and I played the scenario 4 times. Artillery was useless but I did use tanks and infantry together. Won it on 4th attempt I will admit.

[wiggum]

For me in game one thing in bunker war (and extensive to urban warfare) could be made arty more capable of be a fatigue dealer... see arty allways dealing fatigue, more in light defenses and less in heavy defenses but allways increasing target fatigue... with this to mortars and even direct fire infantry/antitank guns could be more usefull to in combat.

Great point, i think thats another point the dev's should look into.
Does Arty deal enough fatigue or should this be increased ?

I think we have gone to the core of the problem.
Fatigue !

Direct & Indirect fire should maybe deal more fatigue generally, this will lead to units disrupting and breaking a bit faster.
Maybe assaults, even if failed should deal fatigue damage to the defenders (and attackers of course)...

[Gregor]

I must say I am very surprised that people find the bunkers too hard. Both my experience and Dog Soldiers demonstration shows that they are easily enough to take if you use the proper tactics. In Kursk the infantry were lacking in HA value so a combined arms approach were needed, but that is less a problem in Normandy.

I do think all my battles so far in Normandy developed as intended and historically accurate with regards to the tactic used by both sides. Due to the 30 min turns and 250m sectors the abstractions are a way of the game, but I do seldom see strange results when looking over the course of say 5 turns. What you don't simulate in the engine is the highest intensity battles where 10+ tanks are taken out in minutes in very short order when ambushed, but it is seen in the results when looking at a bit longer period of turns and the end results are historical and I also doo feel that aspect is better represented in Normandy due to the troop mix.

All in all I do feel its a very good game with the pros and cons at doing the game at this level (30 min turns and 250m sectors). Obviously someone would want a simulator on a more detailed level and someone is more on the operational level, but the game is brilliant on this level and I have difficulties to see how it could be  given major improvements without introducing other problems.

[Gregor]

[quote pid='407165' dateline='1451596971']


Direct & Indirect fire should maybe deal more fatigue generally, this will lead to units disrupting and breaking a bit faster.
Maybe assaults, even if failed should deal fatigue damage to the defenders (and attackers of course)...

[/quote]

To my experience fatigue is already what balance the play. I find this good balanced and what usually is the downfall of defending lines are the disruption and surrounding of the defenders with the following surrender in the assaults. If more units disrupt I fear it will be close to impossible to hold a defensive lines against competent players. The attackers would also be more often disrupted in such a scenario, but with smoke screens and using the terrain I am quite sure it will favor the attacker.

[wiggum]

I must say I am very surprised that people find the bunkers too hard. Both my experience and Dog Soldiers demonstration shows that they are easily enough to take if you use the proper tactics. In Kursk the infantry were lacking in HA value so a combined arms approach were needed, but that is less a problem in Normandy.

Its not about "too hard", its more about strange and unrealistic results that seem to happen a bit too frequent.
Look at my example on the first page.
Its more about very small units that take casualties during a assault and still not become disrupted or "finished off" (although already down from 18 men to just 3 and now took a additional casualty). Its about the "feeling" that small units can hold out in a unrealistic way against overwhelming attackers on a regular basis (i tested it 20 times always the same result).

To my experience fatigue is already what balance the play. I find this good balanced and what usually is the downfall of defending lines are the disruption and surrounding of the defenders with the following surrender in the assaults. If more units disrupt I fear it will be close to impossible to hold a defensive lines against competent players. The attackers would also be more often disrupted in such a scenario, but with smoke screens and using the terrain I am quite sure it will favor the attacker.

Its quiet realistic that a attacker has a edge over a static defender.
He decides where and when to attack and holds the initiative.
Thats why the defense of the germans in WW2 relied heavily on fast counterattacks with mobile reserves.
Now you could argue that the AI is not capable of such a thing but a human player should.