Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Gregor]

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).

Too hard was mostly referring to the title of the thread...

To me your initial result is a bit surprising, wouldn't expect you to fail 100% of the time, as I have taken out better defended positions more than once in assaults even if I prefer to disrupt them first, but with operational guns and firing defenders I have no problem with them holding out for an hour. That isn't that strange. D quality troops wouldn't just storm a defensive bunker complex firing back at them probably from many places. Human beings are known to have quite a lust to save themselves and storming some guns and active defenders are not what low quality troops are most motivated to do. The officers will need to find the best approach and get the best men in position. That will take time, planning and effort and will easily take more than half an hour.

I do think its just that we don't have the same view about how much the game should abstract the fight. I am of the impression you want closer to total control of the men and the terrain, and I am content with that the battle is more abstracted and is closer to a "board" game. I am more operational than tactical in my planning and thinking, and that's probably why I love these games despite the lower scale than PzC. The historical accuracy is also adding a lot to the enjoyment for me.

 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.

Yes and that's exactly what I do feel this game is so good at simulating. The static defenses falls to the proper tactic in the proper timeframe and the defender have the ability to use prober counter tactics to prevent or slow the advance depending on their available forces. I do feel that last aspect is even better represented in Normandy than in Kursk as the force mix is better and both sides have high quality forces and a mixture of assets that makes it more challenging both for the attacker and defender as there are more options available for both sides.

[Ricky B]

For those that feel the need to quote part of what I said, and ignore the rest, as I guess it doesn't support what you feel, I have one more comment to add, then I will leave you all alone :-). For those that feel it is unrealistic that 5 men, or 10 men or 3 men hold out against hundreds of men (and running the same save over and over is NOT a good test as the engine uses a seed value and has a very limited result set from a save-I would suggest trying, ending the turn and continuing until it does fall, and try that over and over a few times), I have this final tidbit to offer.

Based on the US Army Center of Military History-Omaha Beachhead:

Between 07:30 and 08:30 WN-62 and the adjacent positions were assaulted by elements of G/16 and E/16 (G and E Company (Coy). 16th RCT (Regimental Combat Team) of the 1st Infantry Division together with E/116 (E Coy. 116th RCT) of the 29th Infantry Division, who landed at 06:29[11]

Led by Sergeant Philip Streczyk and Lieutenant John M. Spalding[12] the combined force climbed the bluffs at Easy Red, between WN-64 and WN-62. At 09:05, German observers reported that WN-61 was lost, and that only one machine gun was still firing from WN-62. However, as early as 07:35 a radio operator in 726th Grenadier Regiment, defending Fox Green beach, reported that 100–200 American troops had penetrated the front, with troops inside the wire at WN-62 and WN-61, attacking from the rear.[13]

-------------------------

WN 62 was held by approximately 40 men plus heavier weapons. Within an hour of the landing, the US forces had penetrated the wire and were attacking this set of bunkers/positions from the rear. An hour and a half later, there was still 1 MG firing from the position, and presumably most of the defenders by this time were destroyed in game terms. However, this single MG and crew did not surrender right away. So I take this to be at least 4 game turns of close in fighting to eliminate resistance in this one position alone, and it was one of the earlier ones to fall. And from what I have seen, the scenario will replicate this with some kind of reasonable result.

[wiggum]

(and running the same save over and over is NOT a good test as the engine uses a seed value and has a very limited result set from a save-I would suggest trying, ending the turn and continuing until it does fall, and try that over and over a few times), I have this final tidbit to offer.

Now thats interesting, can this be officially confirmed ?

And we already agreed that clearly 5 or 8 men can hold of an assault by 180 men but it was clearly not the norm.

[Ricky B]

Some have agreed that 5-8 men holding off an assault is not the norm, but I am saying that I don't agree, at least in as black and white a statement as above. It depends on what you consider the norm, but in the game sometimes these 5-8 will fall the first time, sometimes the second. I have played through Omaha enough to know that by around 0900 I have some bunkers begin to fall whether it is against a human or the AI, and that others are going to still be holding out.

As I mentioned running the same save over and over, at the point of the assault, is not a valid test as there is very limited variation in the results (I believe to prevent replays to get the desired results) and so for all I know your save is seeded such a way that the assault will absolutely never result in a success, whereas maybe if you fire a unit in a different area first, and then try the assault, it will work 75% of the time. For a valid test, start at the beginning of the turn and try different actions and see how often the engineers win the assault, but with various actions by other forces prior to the assault.

As to what I posted above, being officially confirmed, what would you consider "official"? There is no judge for this, and no video replay. It is supported by the US Army's official history based on their interviews with survivors, of the landings - these positions began to fall around 0900 with some others holding out until the next day. That much is confirmed across almost all sources.

[wiggum]

As to what I posted above, being officially confirmed, what would you consider "official"? There is no judge for this, and no video replay. It is supported by the US Army's official history based on their interviews with survivors, of the landings - these positions began to fall around 0900 with some others holding out until the next day. That much is confirmed across almost all sources.

...i was talking about the "engine uses a seed value in saves so results will not differ that much after reload" thing.

[Ricky B]

Ah, give it a try in the way I described. Or I am happy to take your save if there are other actions and give it a try - I can set up my own test too but I won't have a case that will match yours. Feel free to email me at rickbancroftATqDOTcom. I say this based on the limited variations I have seen in testing, and in PzC where for the longest time if you did the same actions from a save, in the same order, you always got the same results. That was loosened some. But the whole idea back then was to prevent players from replaying the same thing and saving the best result achieved, that I did have at least semi-officially, but not from JT himself.

But no, I don't have it from John Tiller that it works this way, it is purely based on my observations in play testing certain situations. Sorry I misunderstood that.

[wiggum]

Just tested it again but only 10 times.
Loading save game -> perform a unique action prior to assault -> assault

Result:
Assault (180 eng) failed to take the hex -> 10 times
Second assault (180 inf) in same turn successful -> 3 times

[panzerde]

In support of Ricky B's historical example, I think this article from the Imperial War Museum does a very good job describing what combat in Normandy was like. I've found that the game very much reflects what's described in this:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/tactics-an...n-normandy

It was in fact not at all unusual for small groups of defenders in fortified positions to hold out for extended periods of time. There are accounts in every single battle I've read about of German defenders being bypassed after holding up assaults for hours, and then holding on until night when they were able to escape back to their lines. Yes, some did surrender, but not in the wholesale manner that some seem to expect. This was particularly true with higher morale formations like 12-SS Panzer Hitlerjugend.

I'm right now playing the Canadians in a H2H game of Carpiquet. Moving my rifles companies in the open attracts concentrated German artillery fire that has reduced at least one company to about 50% strength and D morale. At least one of the platoons is at yellow fatigue. That's after just two turns of being exposed.

At the same time, about four turns of concentrated tank and AT gun fire from a single armored squadron has reduced a German MG unit - I suspect a company - to single digit defenders. Next turn I'm positioned to assault it with two mostly intact rifle companies (currently broken up as platoons but will be recombined for the assault) supported by Churchill Crocs. I doubt the defenders will be able to hold, and they certainly won't hold twice. That will put me inside the German bunker line and in a protected position to pour direct fire into the adjacent bunker. If I can reduce the defenders there in a couple of turns, even if I can't eliminate them, I can push past them with the rest of the battalion towards the objective at Carpiquet. This is just 7 turns into a 28 turn game.

And frankly, I'm not a very good player. The tactics do work.

[wiggum]

Thanks for the link !

[GerryM]

I don't think anyone is complaining about artillery effects on units in the open. What success has anyone had against Trenches (and what caliber were you using)?

Thanks,

Gerry