Minimize losses attacks.

[John Paul]

Another dumb post(but don't forget that wall incident)from a dumb player.

I have seen it said here,by veteran players,that you should launch attacks on minimize losses setting to wear an opposing force down before initiating your main assault.

Though heres my question,when i plan a minimize loss assault i am almost always told that my losses will be extremely heavy,so how do you initiate such an attack without rendering a unit(s) inoperable..or can't you?

Thanks in advance for all replies.

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by John Paul


Though heres my question,when i plan a minimize loss assault i am almost always told that my losses will be extremely heavy,so how do you initiate such an attack without rendering a unit(s) inoperable..or can't you?

Thanks in advance for all replies.

You must make sacrifices to be a good commander. I never use the combat planner to tell me what my losses are going to be. You just have to accept any cost.

I usually break down my limited attack units and will sacrifice a few by giving them the duty of wearing down the enemy line. If you are lucky they will survive the contact so you can send them in again and again. If not, you will have to send others.

The bottom line is that more often than not, if you don't try to at least wear down the enemy a little before your main attack - you will not defeat him. Limited attacks are a skill you must learn and use.

The trick is finding the right combination of attacks that won't suck up the entire 10 rounds of combat. Sometimes on limited attacks they won't take any damage and they keep on fighting. A skill I am still trying to master...

[Bob Cross]

This is off subject, because if all you want to do is suck the defender's supply away before attacking then minimum loss settings will do that fine.

But if you are actually trying to destroy the defender's equipment too, then I've found that minimum loss settings may have a disadvantage over higher loss settings.

My experience seems to show that attackers on minimum loss settings may drop out of the attack before ever firing on the enemy. In other words, the fire resolution sequence seems to be defender support first, then attacker support, then defender ground, then finally, attacker ground. And if the ground attackers were on minimum losses, that last step may be omitted due to the ground attackers dropping out of the combat due to losses before they even fire once.

That's not really noticable if the defenders are mostly soft equipment that can be killed by the supporting artillery. But if there is significant hard equipment among the defenders, they will be mostly immune to the support so you may hope for them to be reduced by the ground attackers. But if those ground attackers never get to fire, that won't happen. As a result, you get the "tanks won't die!" problem in which a unit with nothing but a few peices of hard equipment left holds off attacking hordes endlessly because the support can't kill them, and your ground armor drops out before firing due to it's loss tolerance.

As a result, I've become less enamored with minimize loss attacks and have mostly switched to limit loss attacks, which do not seem to suffer from this problem. They seem to at least fire once, even if they are going to drop out of the attack after only one round. And if the situation is bloody enough, they usually do drop out after only one round, so rounds aren't wasted.

Now, none of this has been rigorously tested and I can't find any verification in any documentation, so I may be delusional, though I seem to remember something along these lines from somewhere. Can anyone else contribute any experience one way or the other?

[Mantis]

That DOES ring a bell, Bob... But like you, I've only got that 'feeling'; no hard evidence. It does seem to ring true, though...

[Specterx]

I've done a few tests previously with toawlog on, and what I've seen indicates that, if an attacking unit breaks off the attack after a single round, they still get to fire on the defenders for that round (so both sides take losses). I'm not sure, however, if especially heavy defending artillery fire can cause the attackers to break off before the ground combat phase begins.

[Mantis]

It would be nice to know for sure, one way or the other. I'd change the loss tolerance settings too, if I discovered under some circumstances the boys weren't even getting a shot off!

[Sheik Yerbouti]

To set an attack right, one has to consider if defending units are (mainly) composed of 'soft' or 'hard' equipment. Do I need to say more?..:D

[Mantis]

My equipment's always hard!!

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Mantis
My equipment's always hard!!

I saw that coming....

Oh, here we go again...

[Mantis]

Oh. man, I'm not even gonna touch that one!!

(This could go on forever! :D)

[JAMiAM]

To affirm Bob's suspicions...yes, it's quite possible that units on minimize loss settings will break off, without ever firing a shot. I've confirmed this in TOAWlog's.

What happens, is that in each tactical round, the following order is observed:

1) Units involved in the combat are determined (including indirect support assets).

2) Bombardment strengths are determined and executed against defender, and attacker. Also, the entrenchment suppression % of the defender's hex is computed, based on the weight of the long range fire falling into the hex. Max number of anti armor and anti personnel shots per targer are determined. Losses due to bombardment are taken, morale checks are made. At this stage, an attacking unit could break off, without having made any anti armor, or anti personnel attacks.

3) Units still in the battle are added to the combat inventory. First shots are made. Defender fires anti armor, attacker checks morale. Attacker fires anti armor, defender checks morale. Defender fires anti personnel, attacker checks morale. Attacker fires anti personnel, defender checks morale.

4) Steps 2 and 3 are repeated for (up to) the max number of shots allowed by the units involved in the combat, as long as units are still involved. If the max number of shots per round is reached, and there are still units involved, another tactical round begins. They will continue until either one, or both, forces have all units retreated, or broken off by the combat.

Knowing which weapons systems are involved, and the best counter for them, is paramount in successful prosecutions of combat. For every paper, have scissors. For scissors, have rocks. For every rock, have paper. Know how to make the best use of your assets, and how they interact most effectively.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

(After a mature enough pause)

...I'm not even gonna touch that one!!

That's your wife.

...This could go on forever!

That's my happy wife.

:PIMP:

[MonsterZero]

Don't use minimize losses at all. It's counterproductive and makes your troops act like a bunch of girls; they'll pretty much take cover as soon as they receive fire.

Instead of "minimize losses" either dig in to replenish and wait for a more favorable opportunity or maneuver to achieve total encirclement. Once you achieve 100% encirclement you can attack with "Ignore Losses" and the enemy should be wiped out even if he enjoys marked superiority in attack and defense. 99.9% of my encirclement attacks end with enemy being wiped out to the last man while my attacking units usually take 2-5% losses or less. For all practical purposes, I don't use simple frontal attacks at all. Frontal probing attacks is probably the only situation where minimizing losses could make sense (recon by fire) but I don't do it.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by MonsterZero
Don't use minimize losses at all. It's counterproductive and makes your troops act like a bunch of girls; they'll pretty much take cover as soon as they receive fire.

Instead of "minimize losses" either dig in to replenish and wait for a more favorable opportunity or maneuver to achieve total encirclement. Once you achieve 100% encirclement you can attack with "Ignore Losses" and the enemy should be wiped out even if he enjoys marked superiority in attack and defense. 99.9% of my encirclement attacks end with enemy being wiped out to the last man while my attacking units usually take 2-5% losses or less. For all practical purposes, I don't use simple frontal attacks at all. Frontal probing attacks is probably the only situation where minimizing losses could make sense (recon by fire) but I don't do it.

Jam, where art thou? I'm too tired just now to educate this potentially misguided person. :bored:

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


Jam, where art thou? I'm too tired just now to educate this potentially misguided person. :bored:

Chairman JAM's Reeducational Facility is now accepting new enrollments.:devil:

[MonsterZero]

Well, then list some advantages of "minimize losses" as a short bulleted list or something. Don't need to write an essay. The manual talks about picking certain vulnerable units (e.g. HQs) from each formation and minimizing their losses, but I haven't got a week for each scenario. Can't give each unit so much individual attention. I prefer to maneuver in formation strength, encircle and use "All Units Attack" with loss tolerance set to either "Limit" or "Ignore".

And oh, in my human vs. computer battles I adjust the options to give myself "+2" advantage...maybe that's why I can get away with my human wave tactics while you guys have to switch back and forth between your loss tolerance settings.

:p

[a white rabbit]

..not sure if thsi is the right thread but..,

..the min-loss/multiple rounds idea is a very bad one when using aircraft without good to total air-superiority, you get the rounds but your airforce gets cut to ribbons..baaddd idea..,

[Richard]

White Rabbit- I agree enturely- my aircraft live on ignore losses from turn 1

Occaisonal evaporation- but when te end of turn approaches and most of your air units are still flying- and your opponent only has two left in the air- they get wiped out by massive outnumbering.

Badly phrased but you get the idea

Minimise losses are excellent- even with just frontal attack- with high proficiency units- they have a tendency to fight too long. Especially backed by heavy direct artillery support against soft defenders (yes sheik- I know) with low proficiencis- they may even break and flee for almost no casualties

The more of the above factors in play- the more useful the tactic. Otherwise I tend to use the aforementioned limit losses option

Bob sums up the pros of that quite nicely.

I also tend to use minimise losses against armour to suck up supply and hopefully dig them out of entrenchment before a big attack- they tend to turn killers as they fight for ev\er and artillery will only suppress their entrenchment- not cause casualties- so they fight forever and use a lot of combat rounds

Happy fighting

Cheers

Richard

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
(After a mature enough pause)



That's your wife.



That's my happy wife.

:PIMP:

Ok, now you're making me wish I did indulge! :devious:

[Mantis]

Originally posted by MonsterZero
And oh, in my human vs. computer battles I adjust the options to give myself "+2" advantage...maybe that's why I can get away with my human wave tactics while you guys have to switch back and forth between your loss tolerance settings.

:p

Human +2? Really? I've found that even with Computer +2, the PO can't give a decent game in 99.5% of all scenarios..