View Full Version : How to defend
hi guys
Im currently on my 3rd match against my brother, all of them has been as russians in operation barbarosa. After an OD I managed a draw last time.
Now im looking for the best way to defend against the massive german assault. Last time i pretty much fled and formed a line from kharkov in the south to leningrad. I tried to keep as many divisions in the front line as possible, after a little more experience with german artillery i think i might have to reconsider that strategy.
Is it better to keep one division in front of the main line, to act as an form for artillery spunge?
What ratio do u normally use for reserves?
I had to strip parts of my front whenever he made a breakthrough.
My air force was pretty much a nonfactor in our last game, so this time i park them as far away from the front as possible, when should i reintroduce them?
any comments are apreciated.
hi guys
Is it better to keep one division in front of the main line, to act as an form for artillery spunge?
Stacking up heavily in the frontline is usually a bad idea. Sometimes there's a hex you just can't lose, even temporarily, then you don't have much of a choice. But it's typically far better to build successive defensive lines, one after another, rather than shoving everything into a 1 hex frontline where every attack affects every unit in the stack.
My air force was pretty much a nonfactor in our last game, so this time i park them as far away from the front as possible, when should i reintroduce them?
If you're playing the Op. Barbarossa that comes with TOAW, I can't give you specific details (never played it) but it might just be that your air force is meant to pretty much whimper and die as its totally outclassed. You might want to read the TOAW FAQ here http://www.warfarehq.com/toaw/TOAWFAQ2003.shtml
It contains a lot of useful information and includes some things about using airpower.
I cannot stress enough the value of what Mike said about reading that FAQ. It was put together by the entire community, and there are many in that group that known this game inside and out!
Also - as a suggestion, you should perhaps vary your scenario. Might I suggest Kharkov 42?
I can go into quite a bit greater detail, but short of writing you a novel, it would be easier to answer specific questions, like 'how can i defend effectively against an overwhelming force', 'how can I make use of my air', etc etc etc.
Martin Schenkel
20 Nov 03, 22:17
I cannot stress enough the value of what Mike said about reading that FAQ.
Speaking of which, I think the FAQ should be re-formated, to be easier to read. Right now, it's just one big jumble. Maybe make question/subject headers larger and/or colourful, and/or perhaps some kind of listing or linked menu, making quick reference easier.
thx for the comments, i will check out faq now, hopefully i will find the means to humiliate my brother.
laszlo.nemedi
21 Nov 03, 04:25
thx for the comments, i will check out faq now, hopefully i will find the means to humiliate my brother.
Djarnis, be careful which FAQ link you choose.
Not in the header of toaw hq, but the link mentioned in the news section (middle of the page).
Mantis or someone, could you update the toaw faq link to the new one...
Stacking up heavily in the frontline is usually a bad idea. Sometimes there's a hex you just can't lose, even temporarily, then you don't have much of a choice. But it's typically far better to build successive defensive lines, one after another, rather than shoving everything into a 1 hex frontline where every attack affects every unit in the stack.
What about river hexes, isnt it an advantage to stack in these, instead of giving him the river hex.
How about having armor on local reserve behind the main line of defense, is that better than just digging it in?
I read the FAQ, and there was some usefull tips about airpower.
Not really an option in this scenario as i get my air units in small drops.
What about river hexes, isnt it an advantage to stack in these, instead of giving him the river hex.
I prefer in-depth defence behind rivers, with counter-attacks to maintain the lines when necessary. An in-depth defensive line will typically give you flank bonuses when you go to counter-attack, which are very useful at the divisional scale.
How about having armor on local reserve behind the main line of defense, is that better than just digging it in?
I basically never use TR/LR personally (in all my ladder games on WHQ I think I've used it twice, very specifically on hexes I knew were going to be attacked and then only because I desperately needed to reduce the number of attacks my opponent was getting).
I tend to keep armor and mobile forces in reserve for counter-attacks... but I do find that pure armor units (or armour heavy) are especially useful holding vertices in my line as flank assaults don't affect them, they are immune to artillery and dug in armor of the WW2 era can be incredibly difficult to attack. Does not necessarily apply to modern scenarios however, because among other things airpower and general AT values skyrocket relative to AP values. Units with relatively high recon ability are also useful as their first-round recon bonus and typical TO&E (normally a lot of armoured equipment) make them good candidates for those key hexes.
Fortified armour is one of the most painful things to try to attack in TOAW. Stick a strong, armour unit in a dense urban hex and fortify it and only a tremendous and wholly disproportional effort will dislodge it - typically at very heavy cost to the attacker.
I read the FAQ, and there was some usefull tips about airpower.
Not really an option in this scenario as i get my air units in small drops.
I would just keep them out of combat until a significant portion of them arrive, then concentrate them all in one sector in an attempt to win local superiority at least. It might also help to move them into range, use them and withdraw them out of range before your turn is up. If you have reasonaly good control of your turns you can more or less get away with it, though sooner or later they will get caught with them still deployed, so make sure to deploy them in such a way that if they get stuck out there, they're in logical positions.
I have always found it was more difficult to defend than to attack. At least there is more tension in the defense.
When you attack you impose, when you defend you suffer.
LaPalice.
I prefer in-depth defence behind rivers, with counter-attacks to maintain the lines when necessary. An in-depth defensive line will typically give you flank bonuses when you go to counter-attack, which are very useful at the divisional scale.
But is it possible to hold the original line, or will u have to slowly give ground. How often should u cycle the frontline units?
I can se what u mean with counterattack, whenever he breaches it, but wouldnt it make sense, to slowly give ground. Especially as russians, considering the penalties in the beginning, and the amount of ground u have to give.
But is it possible to hold the original line, or will u have to slowly give ground. How often should u cycle the frontline units?
I can se what u mean with counterattack, whenever he breaches it, but wouldnt it make sense, to slowly give ground. Especially as russians, considering the penalties in the beginning, and the amount of ground u have to give.
You can try to hold the line as long as possible and with counter-attacks whenever prudent (don't be suicidal though, if you can afford to trade space.. regular rivers aren't all that they're made out to be anyways... at least not nearly as hard as they were in real life to breach since any unit can cross them... super-rivers and Suez Canals on the other hand... I might get a little suicidal to maintain a super-river position heh).
I cycle units out of the frontlines whenever I have something healthier in reserve that I can put into the line. I might not if the difference won't be significant though... trading a semi-worn unit for another semi-worn unit won't do anything but potentially cost you entrenchment status. Also trading a fresh but weaker unit for a worn but stronger unit wont' necessarily be beneficial, but could be, depending on circumstances. It's a judgement call but usually a straightforward one to make.
Anyways, I prefer it to stacking heavy on the frontline where one attack on the stack drains readiness and supply from every single unit there and exposes a lot of units to enemy artillery, airpower and naval guns. It's bad enough exposing more equipment to enemy support assets, but if you also have density penalties (from stacking too heavily) you're just doing your opponent favours). In the long-run, IMO, its better to defend in-depth unless you can't afford to.
Naturally, no defence lasts forever and you'll eventually be forced to give ground.. but again... in-depth defences shine here.
If he massacres a lot of your firstline, he has to contend with a second line before his turn is over to breakout (even if you don't have enough units to build a solid second line, a spaced secondary line to block zones of control and hinder movement is something I try to maintain). Unless the odds are REALLY lopsided, your secondary line will more or less hold for the turn, allowing you to take action before he can exploit his success. In addition, with a secondary line in place, you can withdraw your first line behind the second (or third and fourth lines even if you've got them). This gives them time to rest/refit and to reach fortified status before they see action again. This also means that instead of you withdrawing your line (and having to abandon units that can't disengage - they'll typically be reorganizing inside your secondary line, giving you a chance to salvage them), rushing backwards and frantically trying to form a coherent line your opponent faces another line of fresh, fortified troops as opposed to worn out units that will not reach full entrenchment before being engaged again.
If you have the forces, you can theoretically keep withdrawing the first line and rebuilding it to the rear, over and over again. In practice that's probably not going to happen, but the concept is still valid as you can put it into practice (if not as perfect as the above scenario) and still get most of the benefits of doing so.
I do sometimes stack in frontline hexes, but it'll usually be with some armour or AT guns or other specialized equipment that I might throw into a key place (basically all the stuff that can't be used on an independent basis, I tend to throw into the frontlines where they'll do some good - and sometimes I'll use broken/unbroken armour to bolster infantry at areas being attacked).
Anyways, this is just how I play... just give it a shot and compare/contrast it to other play styles and find something that suits you, which is ultimately what matters most.
Thx a lot.
A lot of usefull information.
I will try to make an indepth defence this time, and see how it works out.
I will keep u notified of how my experiments go.
What about river hexes, isnt it an advantage to stack in these, instead of giving him the river hex.
If I remember correctly there is a penalty factor applied for attackers attacking from a river hex, and possibly a penalty factor for defenders defending on a river hex. I always form lines just behind rivers (logic says it is harder for them to assault when they need a ferry :D )
Can anyone confirm this please ??
Southern Dandy
21 Nov 03, 15:58
I don't have the manual handy right now (SO many things in boxes...I hate moving!) but there is no penalty for defending in a river hex.
Attacking from a river hex though means that the attacker's strength gets multiplied by 0.7 (a 30% loss), regardless of river/super-river status. Therefore, the general consensus, at least around here, seems to be to make your MLR behind the river and let your opponent take the penalty trying to attack from the river. As with any generally agreed upon position, there are unique circumstances where this doesn't always hold true.
Nice thing about super rivers and Suez Canal locations is that only specialized units can create crossings for them, or else attacking units have to find a bridged location....making them easier to defend, at least in theory.
Keep firing away with the questions....good discussion!
John
Attacking from a river hex though means that the attacker's strength gets multiplied by 0.7 (a 30% loss), regardless of river/super-river status. Therefore, the general consensus, at least around here, seems to be to make your MLR behind the river and let your opponent take the penalty trying to attack from the river. As with any generally agreed upon position, there are unique circumstances where this doesn't always hold true.
Have i understood it correctly, that defending with a unit on a river hex actually doesnt give any bonuses.
But when u defend behind the river u get the bonus because he has to move through the river hex before attacking?
I have been reluctant to give away river hexes it seems i should reconsider.
I have another question, is there no way to prioritize your supply, i mean instead of having 10 red units u could get one green and 9 red?
Is the smart thing just to disband the units thereby getting more replacements your other ubits?
Yes, sit behind the rivers not on them !
It makes sense when you think about it, why defend with wet trousers when you can make them attack with wet trousers !
I know of no way to prioritise supply - other than keeping a relevant HQ unit next to the unit you want supplied. Others though may know better ...
Also, one slight defect in TOAW, a unit with 1% supply is nowhere near as useless as logic says it should be. In scenarios where you have to attack then throw them all in !
Defending ON the river offers you no bonuses and actually penalizes you in terms of supply unless you're on a bridge hex.
Disbanding units depends entirely on the scenario, scale, etc. Many scenarios have house rules preventing disbandment. Basically you won't really see any supply gains by disbanding units, but if your replacements (rifle squads and the like) are running out, it may be beneficial to disband some units to strengthen others. But then again it might not because the unit might reconstitute immediately if enough equipment is available (thus just taking them out of action for a while). THere are extensive articles about reconstituting units and unit replacements somewhere, but I don't know where they are at the moment.
THere are extensive articles about reconstituting units and unit replacements somewhere, but I don't know where they are at the moment.
The definitive article on replacements and reconstitutions is by Chris Horn (aka General Staff) and can be found here (http://www.tdg.nu/resources/articles/design%20articles/Replacements%20&%20Reconstitution.htm).
The definitive article on replacements and reconstitutions is by Chris Horn (aka General Staff) and can be found here (http://www.tdg.nu/resources/articles/design%20articles/Replacements%20&%20Reconstitution.htm).
Pretty schoking read, it states that reconstitued units have acces to replacements before existing units get any. Thats sucks pretty much, as reconstitued units will have a low proficiency.
In my case (Barbarossa) it means that as long as my reconstitued units, use more than my replacement pool, my on map units wont get any.
I used to be happy when my units reconstituted, but actually they are leeching on my existing units. I guess the only way to counter this, is to try and keep as many of your units alive, as long as possible.
I guess i will have to try to explain that to the wehrmacht storming towards moscow.
Southern Dandy
22 Nov 03, 15:57
Have i understood it correctly, that defending with a unit on a river hex actually doesnt give any bonuses.
But when u defend behind the river u get the bonus because he has to move through the river hex before attacking?
I have been reluctant to give away river hexes it seems i should reconsider.
I have another question, is there no way to prioritize your supply, i mean instead of having 10 red units u could get one green and 9 red?
Is the smart thing just to disband the units thereby getting more replacements your other ubits?
I know someone else has already replied, but I'll chime back in again....
The defender doesn't get a bonus, period, on the river or behind it. The attacker, however, gets a penalty from attacking from a river hex (or a deep water hex...think Allies landing on Normandy beaches). This weakens the attack, though tons of artillery and air support can ameriolate the difference pretty nicely. The rational being, I'm sure, is that when the attacker is ferrying across the river, or unloading onto the beach, they're vulnerable and exposed....no cover, that sort of thing.
As for supply, HQ's and studying your road net are your best bet. If you have a unit on or adjacent to a railway or improved road, with an unbroken LOC to a supply point, that unit will replenish rapidly compared to a unit off the road out in the woods somewhere....
Disbands....depends on circumstances. If the unit in question is surrounded, it is very bad form to disband it. If it isn't surrounded....sometimes you need the men and equipment in your replacement pool to help your units in the fight, other times it's better to send a fresh untested unit to the guns and pull an exhausted but highly proficient one out of the fight. Again, this "gut" feel gets easier with experience and making plenty of mistakes.
John
I know someone else has already replied, but I'll chime back in again....
As for supply, HQ's and studying your road net are your best bet. If you have a unit on or adjacent to a railway or improved road, with an unbroken LOC to a supply point, that unit will replenish rapidly compared to a unit off the road out in the woods somewhere....
Where should u place hq units?
In the same hex as the units u want supplied or behind it?
Can u see the supply factor change when u move an hq unit in to the vicinity? (supply factor=the small numbers that indicate how good supply a hex got, is there a "real" name for them?)
Does it matter if the hq unit is from the same formation?
Thx for the patience, even though i think u will run out of it before i run out of questions :)
Southern Dandy
23 Nov 03, 08:18
Where should u place hq units?
In the same hex as the units u want supplied or behind it?
Can u see the supply factor change when u move an hq unit in to the vicinity? (supply factor=the small numbers that indicate how good supply a hex got, is there a "real" name for them?)
Does it matter if the hq unit is from the same formation?
Thx for the patience, even though i think u will run out of it before i run out of questions :)
Hello again!
I'll try to answer your questions in the order asked....
HQ units work best when adjacent or in the same hex with the unit you want supplied. Which you actually do varies by circumstances- try not to have HQs in the front line, because if they get beat up on in a battle, their entire formation may be in re-org for a couple of turns.
As for seeing supply levels cahnge, you won't see it happen the same turn you do it. The game engine calculates supply levels between game turns (not between each player's turn...eg, it will between Soviet turn 1 and Axis turn 2, not between Axis turn 2 and Soviet turn 2). Check back a turn later, you should see a difference, as long as something bad hasn't happened along the way! Just remember that simply moving a unit eats up some of its supply, as well as combat....
To a degree, yes....any HQ will help as opposed to none at all. Ideally though, the HQ is the parent unit of the formation (1st Guards Army HQ will do the most for 1st Guards Army Rifle Divisions, though to some degree it would help an NKVD security unit, for example).
Keep firing away, I think we all had these questions when we were learning too....and if anyone can amplify, clarify, or even correct my answers, go ahead and do so!
John
Having a well documented background w/your opponent, keep
counterattack forces behind the main defense line - preferably
hidden/unseen. Always make sure you give your opponent enough
room to insert some valuable units into the breach of your line -
then not just encircle the encroaching units - but plan on expanding the counterattack - go for the juicy HQ/Artillery/Support units. If possible
destroy the physical infrastructure ie bridges etc. before withdrawing
to fight another day :devil:
Hello again!
I'll try to answer your questions in the order asked....
HQ units work best when adjacent or in the same hex with the unit you want supplied. Which you actually do varies by circumstances- try not to have HQs in the front line, because if they get beat up on in a battle, their entire formation may be in re-org for a couple of turns.
That would explain why i have 5 divisions reorganizing southwest of moscow.
Keep firing away, I think we all had these questions when we were learning too....and if anyone can amplify, clarify, or even correct my answers, go ahead and do so!
Very well here are some other questions.
When u counterattack how many units should u enlist in the counter attack. I always try to get the prognosis as high as possible (Excellent). What should it be before u can reasonably excpect succes?
Can u control what units move to the hex after the attack? I understand that limited attack means that the unit wont enter the hex u attack, is that correct?
When u conquer the hex back is it wise to have many units in the hex or should u try to take it with as few as possible. If u dont have time to dig them in, isnt it wasting the units?
Is the pupose of counter attacking to get the hex back, or punishing the unit he has moved forward. I understand it depends on the situation, but as long as u have ground to give do u really want a hex back where your units isnt fortified?
I hope i make sense
Having a well documented background w/your opponent, keep
counterattack forces behind the main defense line - preferably
hidden/unseen. Always make sure you give your opponent enough
room to insert some valuable units into the breach of your line -
then not just encircle the encroaching units - but plan on expanding the counterattack - go for the juicy HQ/Artillery/Support units. If possible
destroy the physical infrastructure ie bridges etc. before withdrawing
to fight another day :devil:
Why should they be unseen? Wont u just have to move the further before they can participate in the attack?
I havent really mastered the art of calculating how to get the maximum number of attack in a given round. I guess that is a prerequisite for expanding counterattacks.
Sturlungur
23 Nov 03, 10:29
To a degree, yes....any HQ will help as opposed to none at all. Ideally though, the HQ is the parent unit of the formation (1st Guards Army HQ will do the most for 1st Guards Army Rifle Divisions, though to some degree it would help an NKVD security unit, for example).
John
Interesting John.
This is one of the things that have been bugging me.
According to the manual then HQ supply bonuses are based on the co-operation level. Doesn't this mean that unless the HQ's are defined with limiting co-operating levels like internal support then they can provide their supply bonuses to almost any unit?
Why should they be unseen? Wont u just have to move the further before they can participate in the attack?
I havent really mastered the art of calculating how to get the maximum number of attack in a given round. I guess that is a prerequisite for expanding counterattacks.
At the top of the attack planning screen, there is a block that has gold and grey squares show up whenever an attack is planned. If you attack with a unit that has not moved, only 1-2 gold squares will appear; but if you attack with a unit that has moved half it's movement allowance, several gold squares(5-6) will appear.
These gold squares indicate how many combat rounds will be used up in the attack.
Whether you attack at min. losses or ignore losses also makes a big difference; at ignore losses, a unit will probably keep attacking after being beaten back, using up more combat rounds in the process.
Ok then, someone told me this once but I've forgotten (old age :whlchr: ) - what's the difference between the gold and grey squares ??
Ok then, someone told me this once but I've forgotten (old age :whlchr: ) - what's the difference between the gold and grey squares ??
Gold squares indicate how many rounds of combat will be expended by the present attack(the one you're planning) while the grey squares indicate how many combat rounds will be expended by attacks already planned.
ex.: You plan an attack with a unit that has not moved. A typical screen would show 1 gold square.
You then plan an attack with a unit that has moved half it's movement allowance. 1 grey square will appear for the other attack and 4-5 gold squares for the present attack.
These attacks should use up 5-6 combat rounds.
laszlo.nemedi
23 Nov 03, 10:58
Ok then, someone told me this once but I've forgotten (old age :whlchr: ) - what's the difference between the gold and grey squares ??
I don't use thst squares, I count myself, which unit when to attack (much easier than seeing the combat planner for that. That way I only miss the cooperation indicators :cry: but I left room for improvement :rolleyes:
Gold squares indicate how many rounds of combat will be expended by the present attack(the one you're planning) while the grey squares indicate how many combat rounds will be expended by attacks already planned.
Great ! Thanks for that !
Southern Dandy
24 Nov 03, 00:43
Interesting John.
This is one of the things that have been bugging me.
According to the manual then HQ supply bonuses are based on the co-operation level. Doesn't this mean that unless the HQ's are defined with limiting co-operating levels like internal support then they can provide their supply bonuses to almost any unit?
This is why I asked others to double-check my work, so to speak! :D
You're probably right....I mentioned earlier in this thread that my copy of the manual is in a box somewhere (I'm moving in less than a week, so things are sort of...ahhh, never mind sort of, they just are, chaotic on my end). At any rate, I'm working from memory here, and my memory isn't always all that great!
I did overlook that little detail...though in a larger scale scenario like a Barbarossa (I'm guessing Djarnis is playing the CD version) it seems that nearly every HQ on the board has at least limited, if not free cooperation with other units.
Thanks for pointing that out....
John
Southern Dandy
24 Nov 03, 01:40
When u counterattack how many units should u enlist in the counter attack. I always try to get the prognosis as high as possible (Excellent). What should it be before u can reasonably excpect succes?
Can u control what units move to the hex after the attack? I understand that limited attack means that the unit wont enter the hex u attack, is that correct?
When u conquer the hex back is it wise to have many units in the hex or should u try to take it with as few as possible. If u dont have time to dig them in, isnt it wasting the units?
Is the pupose of counter attacking to get the hex back, or punishing the unit he has moved forward. I understand it depends on the situation, but as long as u have ground to give do u really want a hex back where your units isnt fortified?
I hope i make sense
Let me ask you a question....are you playing the CD version of Barbarossa, or another design of it, like DNO? It doesn't matter in the long run, though some of my answers previously have been generalizations based on the CD version that may not apply to more detail oriented variants....I'll assume for now that you're playing the CD version with my responses.
When counterattacking with the Soviets, there are a few things to remember...first, you have lousy force proficiency, meaning your units will break off attacks earlier, suffer greater losses, and have a higher likelihood of failure than an otherwise identical attack executed by the German side. Second, depending on what turn it is in the scenario, the German side has a positive "shock" bonus working for it, while you may even have the double whammy of having a negative "shock" bonus against you (I don't have the scenario dumped in the background, so I very well might be mistaken on this point, though I know the Germans have a positive shock effect the first several turns). This simply serves to exacerbate my first point above.
As for numbers, the more the better is a general rule. More specifically though, avoid overstacking where you can....you take greater losses in doing so. If you pile 9 rifle divisions into a hex (not sure if this is even physically possible or not), even with loss settings on minimal, you're almost certain to have at least one of those divisions evaporate due to losses in an attack unless your targeted hex is disproportionately weak.
It's better to attack from more than one hex when you can, as it helps to ameriolate the overstacking issue. Best yet is when you can get the flanking attack bonus, which means you're attacking from at least 2 hexes 120 degrees apart. Get that bonus, plus a healthy force ratio in your favor, and you'll knock those pesky Germans back a little more often than without the flanking bonus. A minimum of a 3:1 ratio in your favor seems to work well in many circumstances, but entrenchment levels, supporting assets, terrain effects, proficiency and shock levels add more than a few variables to this consideration.
Your understanding of limited attack is correct...
As for the rest of your queries, it is largely situation dependant. Is your goal to launch a larger counterstroke, or are your efforts more "tactical" in nature? Do you have the forces for a larger operation, and are they capable of it? You get the idea....lots of questions to answer and contigencies to consider before clicking the mouse to start making a counterattack (or counteroffensive!) a reality.
In many large-scale east front scenarios, it is difficult to get more than one combat round consistently on the Soviet side. That low force proficiency really hurts you here....odds are, if you retake a hex, you won't be able to dig in anyway, meaning your units moving inot the hex will be in mobile status, rather than in a defensive posture.
Depending on specifics, this isn't always a recipe for disaster....for example, if you punch a hole in his line in that "fuzzy" area between AGN and AGC (likely to be a screen with little immediate reserve) with adequate force, you can really cramp your opponent's style. He may then be more than a little concerned about his extended flanks and wonder if your attack is limited, or a design to cut off significant forces of either AGN or AGC. This forces him to divert units from either Moscow and Leningrad (or both!), buying you some more time and a better force ratio in those areas....advantage you!
On the other hand, if you drive him back a hex in front of Smolensk, you're almost certain to get rudely handled the next turn. Sometimes, and this is a hard lesson to learn, you're better off digging in and "taking" the punishment, rather than counterattacking boldly and getting chopped up piecemeal on the next turn. At least your inept Soviet forces get a small bonus for being in a defensive posture (D, E, or F), which helps bleed the German advance a little more.
I'm sure there's much more to be mentioned as far as how to get the most out of the Soviets in a Barbarossa scenario...a lot of people on this site (and others) could probably write a book on the topic!
John
Let me ask you a question....are you playing the CD version of Barbarossa, or another design of it, like DNO? It doesn't matter in the long run, though some of my answers previously have been generalizations based on the CD version that may not apply to more detail oriented variants....I'll assume for now that you're playing the CD version with my responses.
I think its the cd version its called "operation barbarossa (20km) 9.0"
Its largely on division scale, if that means anything.
When counterattacking with the Soviets, there are a few things to remember...first, you have lousy force proficiency, meaning your units will break off attacks earlier, suffer greater losses, and have a higher likelihood of failure than an otherwise identical attack executed by the German side. Second, depending on what turn it is in the scenario, the German side has a positive "shock" bonus working for it, while you may even have the double whammy of having a negative "shock" bonus against you (I don't have the scenario dumped in the background, so I very well might be mistaken on this point, though I know the Germans have a positive shock effect the first several turns). This simply serves to exacerbate my first point above.
Dont i know it, i think the shock starts evening out around turn 10, at least thats what it states in the briefing. Is there somewhere u can see the actual shock effects for the different rounds?
As for numbers, the more the better is a general rule. More specifically though, avoid overstacking where you can....you take greater losses in doing so. If you pile 9 rifle divisions into a hex (not sure if this is even physically possible or not), even with loss settings on minimal, you're almost certain to have at least one of those divisions evaporate due to losses in an attack unless your targeted hex is disproportionately weak.
It's better to attack from more than one hex when you can, as it helps to ameriolate the overstacking issue. Best yet is when you can get the flanking attack bonus, which means you're attacking from at least 2 hexes 120 degrees apart. Get that bonus, plus a healthy force ratio in your favor, and you'll knock those pesky Germans back a little more often than without the flanking bonus. A minimum of a 3:1 ratio in your favor seems to work well in many circumstances, but entrenchment levels, supporting assets, terrain effects, proficiency and shock levels add more than a few variables to this consideration.
Depending on specifics, this isn't always a recipe for disaster....for example, if you punch a hole in his line in that "fuzzy" area between AGN and AGC (likely to be a screen with little immediate reserve) with adequate force, you can really cramp your opponent's style. He may then be more than a little concerned about his extended flanks and wonder if your attack is limited, or a design to cut off significant forces of either AGN or AGC. This forces him to divert units from either Moscow and Leningrad (or both!), buying you some more time and a better force ratio in those areas....advantage you!
On the other hand, if you drive him back a hex in front of Smolensk, you're almost certain to get rudely handled the next turn. Sometimes, and this is a hard lesson to learn, you're better off digging in and "taking" the punishment, rather than counterattacking boldly and getting chopped up piecemeal on the next turn. At least your inept Soviet forces get a small bonus for being in a defensive posture (D, E, or F), which helps bleed the German advance a little more.
John
Thx for the comments, i can now see i made a lot of mistakes last time. I was stacking pretty heavily, i had no idea that it increased the chances og units evaporating. I was basically trying to hold the front line, and whenever he breached it he would have free movement.
I had little possiblity of flanking attack as my front was only one hex deep.
I wont reveal my exact plan here, as im sure my opponent trolls the forums as well.
But i will try to use the advice u have given.
When u counterattack how many units should u enlist in the counter attack. I always try to get the prognosis as high as possible (Excellent).
The attack planner's "chance of success" is total crap. Ignore it entirely :D. There are so many other factors (highly dependent on the scenario) at work in a game as scaleable as TOAW. Experience is the best teacher here.
If you have recon though, I do find the attack planner's numerical ratios to be useful reference points. But you have to take into account all the things that don't go into that number, particularly support assets (planes, artillery, ships, etc).
If you're not sure about an attack (but don't want to risk burning a lot of the turn), try a stacked attack on minimize losses (eg multiple units all attackong on min losses). I tend to do a lot of attacking, so usually the unimportant, secondary attacks are done with minimal risk (eg minimize losses) so I don't screw up key assaults elsewhere. If you have shock bonuses in your favour though, you can turn a shock advantage into a seriously crippling offensive by attacking aggressively (and making gains) in many places rather than a few focused ones.
In one of those nuances about TOAW: VERY weak, but fortified units can really burn rounds, even on minimize loss attacks. Especially if its armor-heavy. Its weakness means it has a problem killing enough of the attackers to force them to break off, but its fortified status (and if its armor the curtailed ability of the attackers to kill them) can be the biggest drain on your turns. Strong units attacking strong units on fortified losses is safe by comparison. I usually try to overrun these (retreat before combat), or if that's not possible or doesn't pan out, then I tend to leave them for later in the turn after all my important stuff is finished.
TOAW tends to have a lot of these kinds of things embedded into the system (inherent in the ability to use the hugely differing map scales). Just something you need to learn thorugh experience.
What should it be before u can reasonably excpect succes?
As above, you can not rely on this, but I'll reiterate: the combat ratios (and again you must be aware of factors that are not listed [support assets for example] or are not clearly defined [proficiency - it plays into unit strength but that does not accurately reflect how much impact high/low proficiency can have]) do serve a valuable purpose as reference points for the duration of the scenario (and possibly other scenarios with similar OOBs, scale, etc).
I used to hotseat a few turns of a scenario (if its new to me) to get a feel for the combat before actually playing it vs an opponent, using combat ratios as a useful reference point (but by no means definitively affecting my attacks... just as a general idea). I'm too lazy to do that these days, though I think doing that in the past really helped, because I can dive into pretty much any era, force, equipment, etc now and have a good idea of what the combat will be like.
Can u control what units move to the hex after the attack? I understand that limited attack means that the unit wont enter the hex u attack, is that correct?
Yes, but a regular attack doesn't guarantee the unit will enter the hex either (as it might break off while other units, say one on limited attack continues fighting until the enemy retreats). If you have a fairly 'easy' or 'safe' assault, it helps to put the units you specifically want to advance on ignore losses to reduce the chance that they will break off early.
When u conquer the hex back is it wise to have many units in the hex or should u try to take it with as few as possible. If u dont have time to dig them in, isnt it wasting the units?
I'd say this is highy circumstantial. I personally don't subscribe the theory of probing a line everywhere, poking 1 hex holes in an opposing line here and there, then shoving a lot of units in them (I see a lot of people doing this and I don't consider it 'wrong' or anything, but if your opponent decides to hit back you're in for a world of hurt, not to mention somewhat lack a clear plan/objective). I plan where I intend to break out and I plan to break multiple and adjacent hexes. If it doesn't pan out, I might try again elsewhere or otherwise just break off the attack.
That being said, I'd say parking a lot of units into a hex with unprotected flanks is generally not a great idea unless you really want to break out there (and maintain control of that hex over the course of your opponents turn). Tactically you'll probably be on the losing side of comparitive losses, but strategically it might be worth it. Circumstances.
As for not being able to dig them in, that's always a danger, but that's why it's probably best to try and have all important attacks done before you get late into the turn. Sometimes it doesn't matter and leaving attacks for later in the turn are okay (or even later turns in case your turn ends unexpectedly and you don't even get to launch the attack).
Is the pupose of counter attacking to get the hex back, or punishing the unit he has moved forward. I understand it depends on the situation, but as long as u have ground to give do u really want a hex back where your units isnt fortified?
The purpose is whatever you 'need' more I guess, again depending on circumstance ;).
In the context of Barbarossa, I'd say if you're holding a super-river line or otherwise a favorable defensive position it's probably worth it to retake the ground and re-establish the line, but only if you have reasonable expectations for success. If for example he breaks a 4-5 hex hole in your first line and throws a bunch of units inside it, odds are you'd just be better off withdrawing the first-line (or at least, all of it in the vicinity of the attacks... just bear in mind that it exposes even more units to flank assaults, which can be bad on a divisional scale).
It also pays to keep the line 'straight' (eg exposing no flanks). I often counter-attack vigorously for an otherwise worthless hex just to keep my line straight, because even one, single, exposed hex can result in your line being 'rolled' from that one hex with a series of flank assaults up the line.
This is a bit hard to explain if you didn't get my meaning from my short description, so if you're curious see South Front 42 as the Soviets (there's a German fortified line that runs from Stalingrad to the NW) for a prime example of how this happens. The German fortified line in question is quite a formidable position. If you tried to break this position frontally (and quickly) you're probably going to lose a load of men and leave the Germans in control of most of the fortified hexes.
But it has a weakness - it leaves 1 single hex on a vertex (hex 80,22), exposing it to flank attack. The Soviet player attacks that one hex and advances after combat and occupies it with the division that would be out of contact with the line othewise (after the assault). The unit that advanced into 80,22 then takes part in the next attack on 81,23 (it can do this without using extra rounds for movement because advancing after combat, depending on a number of factors, may not actually take up any more MP than would have been lost anyways). The unit that advances to occupy 81,23 on the attack then takes part in the attack on 82,23 and so on until you've 'rolled the line' and in one swift step thrown the scenario designers entire equation for scenario balance out the window :D.
Hard fast rules are bad though, so don't take anything you read here as a golden rule. Everything depends on circumstance.
No more good advice for Djarnis please. :cry:
That means you too Foggy :(
T
If you have recon though, I do find the attack planner's numerical ratios to be useful reference points. But you have to take into account all the things that don't go into that number, particularly support assets (planes, artillery, ships, etc).
If you're not sure about an attack (but don't want to risk burning a lot of the turn), try a stacked attack on minimize losses (eg multiple units all attackong on min losses). I tend to do a lot of attacking, so usually the unimportant, secondary attacks are done with minimal risk (eg minimize losses) so I don't screw up key assaults elsewhere. If you have shock bonuses in your favour though, you can turn a shock advantage into a seriously crippling offensive by attacking aggressively (and making gains) in many places rather than a few focused ones.
What ratio should u consider safe when u calculate his ratio compared to your own, is 3:1 sufficient? I know it isnt an exact science as schock affects, but just give me your gut feeling. I wont hold u up on it.
Isnt it an advantage to start with your noncritical attacks on min losses.
As u then can launch multiple attacks on min losses and?
Will a stacked attack with 6 units burn less of your round than six units attacking from different hexes?
As for not being able to dig them in, that's always a danger, but that's why it's probably best to try and have all important attacks done before you get late into the turn. Sometimes it doesn't matter and leaving attacks for later in the turn are okay (or even later turns in case your turn ends unexpectedly and you don't even get to launch the attack).
The purpose is whatever you 'need' more I guess, again depending on circumstance ;).
In the context of Barbarossa, I'd say if you're holding a super-river line or otherwise a favorable defensive position it's probably worth it to retake the ground and re-establish the line, but only if you have reasonable expectations for success. If for example he breaks a 4-5 hex hole in your first line and throws a bunch of units inside it, odds are you'd just be better off withdrawing the first-line (or at least, all of it in the vicinity of the attacks... just bear in mind that it exposes even more units to flank assaults, which can be bad on a divisional scale).
It also pays to keep the line 'straight' (eg exposing no flanks). I often counter-attack vigorously for an otherwise worthless hex just to keep my line straight, because even one, single, exposed hex can result in your line being 'rolled' from that one hex with a series of flank assaults up the line.
Hard fast rules are bad though, so don't take anything you read here as a golden rule. Everything depends on circumstance.
I think im about to get the picture of do´s and dont´s, thx a lot for your reply. Amazing how helpfull ppl are in this forum. It seems i will get the chance to try out my new knowledge faster than i had hoped. The germans just landed a division close to leningrad.
No more good advice for Djarnis please. :cry:
That means you too Foggy :(
I will accept your unconditional surrender, i think that u will find me very reasonable. After all, do u really need Munich?
Hold op med at være fræk og kom med din tur 7.
Brormand
Hold op med at være fræk og kom med din tur 7.
Brormand
I will take that as your interested but the political climate isnt ready for a ceasefire yet.
I will send your turn as soon as im done calculating. U now u have to be carefull when u plan your turn, theres a thread about it somewhere. ;)
Southern Dandy
25 Nov 03, 10:51
I think its the cd version its called "operation barbarossa (20km) 9.0"
Its largely on division scale, if that means anything.
Dont i know it, i think the shock starts evening out around turn 10, at least thats what it states in the briefing. Is there somewhere u can see the actual shock effects for the different rounds?
Thx for the comments, i can now see i made a lot of mistakes last time. I was stacking pretty heavily, i had no idea that it increased the chances og units evaporating. I was basically trying to hold the front line, and whenever he breached it he would have free movement.
I had little possiblity of flanking attack as my front was only one hex deep.
I wont reveal my exact plan here, as im sure my opponent trolls the forums as well.
But i will try to use the advice u have given.
I haven't played the version you're playing, so I'm not completely familiar with all its ins and outs...as for seeing what the shock levels are on a given turn, if the designer didn't state them in the briefing, then you'll need to open the scenario up in the editor, select "dump scenario as," open up the resulting document and pick through the events list. It would read something similar to "Event 1: Force one shock 110 Turns 1-5," meaning the Axis has a 110% shock for the first five turns. If there's a negative shock in there, then you'd see an event for force 2 shock set at less than 100 for whatever turns are in the range.
Generally, if you have the forces to allow you stack heavily into the front line, it's a good idea to pull some of those units into a second line. Even if you can't man a continuous line by that method, make sure you have "strongpoints" every fourth hex at minimum so your opponent has to pass through a ZOC and take a movement penalty (this unfortunately doesn't apply if he's overrunning a unit through a hex he'd otherwise have to face a movement penalty, which is why a continuous line is helpful). In theory at least, this will slow his momentum and give you a chance to recover the situation before you have a full scale, disastrous breakout and pursuit on your hands.
Also, in creating a second line, you can rest units a bit before reinserting them into your front and pulling other worn down units out for a bit of a rest and refit period...if your front is stable and holds. Finally, if he does break into your line, by having a reserve line, you often have an opportunity to hit his penetrating forces with a flanking attack, by combining your reserve line with your front line in the assault.
Then there's the frustration factor...as a player trying to keep an offensive going, there's little that's more aggravating than the following sequence: Break through a line only to run into another one, get slapped around a bit by it to boot, repeat until he finally has to fall back to a new line and start all over again.
I'll think for a bit and see if there's anything else Rasmus wouldn't want you to know! :cheeky: :D
John
JeremyMacDonald
26 Nov 03, 03:20
I think its the cd version its called "operation barbarossa (20km) 9.0"
Its largely on division scale, if that means anything.
That would be Brian Topps very populer version of Barbarossa.
Famous for declarations from different people at different times regarding whether its impossible to win as the Germans or if it actually favours the Germans. Maybe the most widely played ACOW scenario that did not come on the disk.
JeremyMacDonald
26 Nov 03, 03:45
I haven't played the version you're playing, so I'm not completely familiar with all its ins and outs...as for seeing what the shock levels are on a given turn, if the designer didn't state them in the briefing, then you'll need to open the scenario up in the editor, select "dump scenario as," open up the resulting document and pick through the events list. It would read something similar to "Event 1: Force one shock 110 Turns 1-5," meaning the Axis has a 110% shock for the first five turns. If there's a negative shock in there, then you'd see an event for force 2 shock set at less than 100 for whatever turns are in the range.
Its something along the lines of 80% German shock bonus on turn 1, 70% on turn 2, 60% on turn 3 etc. Thats probably not it exactly but its close to that. No shock penalty in this scenario for the Russians.
Generally, if you have the forces to allow you stack heavily into the front line, it's a good idea to pull some of those units into a second line. Even if you can't man a continuous line by that method, make sure you have "strongpoints" every fourth hex at minimum so your opponent has to pass through a ZOC and take a movement penalty (this unfortunately doesn't apply if he's overrunning a unit through a hex he'd otherwise have to face a movement penalty, which is why a continuous line is helpful). In theory at least, this will slow his momentum and give you a chance to recover the situation before you have a full scale, disastrous breakout and pursuit on your hands.
One might be able to backstop some parts of the front but a full scale double line is impossible for the Russians in this scenario. As an aside don't backstop your line with some 1-1 AT company. They just accelerate the enemy breakthrough. You should be reasonably sure that any units held in reserve can't be overrun by enemy forces on push backs. That often really helps out the attacker...who otherwise does not have enough movement to advance anyfurther due to ZOCs. This happens a lot with artillery though there is little that can be done regarding this..though sometimes its worth it to actually stack the artillery in the front line with the good units. Sure they take more damage that way but they are less likely to accelerate enemy breakthroughs.
Also, in creating a second line, you can rest units a bit before reinserting them into your front and pulling other worn down units out for a bit of a rest and refit period...if your front is stable and holds.
Probably not possible in this scenario...this one is more along the lines of desperatly throw everything back into the line as fast as possible in a vain attempt to stop, or at least slow down, the Hun Juggernaught.
Finally, if he does break into your line, by having a reserve line, you often have an opportunity to hit his penetrating forces with a flanking attack, by combining your reserve line with your front line in the assault.
Then there's the frustration factor...as a player trying to keep an offensive going, there's little that's more aggravating than the following sequence: Break through a line only to run into another one, get slapped around a bit by it to boot, repeat until he finally has to fall back to a new line and start all over again.
Until later in the scenario this is not likely to be possible for the Russians. Between shock, the large size of the front and the big differences in proficiency the Russians are hard pressed to adequitly defend everything never mind orchistrating counter attacks.
I'll think for a bit and see if there's anything else Rasmus wouldn't want you to know! :cheeky: :D
John
JeremyMacDonald
26 Nov 03, 04:08
What ratio should u consider safe when u calculate his ratio compared to your own, is 3:1 sufficient? I know it isnt an exact science as schock affects, but just give me your gut feeling. I wont hold u up on it.
I suspect that you should start trying to divorce yourself from thinking in these terms at all. Speaking for myself I simply don't ask myself what the 'odds' are on an attack in this format at all. I think Southern Dandy is basically saying the same thing...he does not think of attacks as being 2-1 or 3-1 odds. In fact I would argue that this is one of the highlights of the TOAW system. Historically nobody sat around calculating the 'odds' except maybe the late war Russians and they found that thier calculations failed as often as they succeeded. Sure numbers play a factor but one really needs to get to 'know' their army becuase every army in TOAW...in fact every force in every scenario plays differently - some armies can routinely do things that others find almost impossible - there is often a potent combat arm that must be utilized to the max if one wants to get the most out of their army as well. In World War II scenarios the Germans are usually looking to the tanks to be the arm of descision, for the British it often (but not always) the artillery thats the true god of war and for the Americans one should look to the skies.
There are so many factors feeding into this equation that its impossible to make a simplistic reply or work on basic principles like 3-1 odds is good. The difference in proficiency, supply and readyness have a big impact. Exactly whats in the attacking and defending hexs make all the difference in the world. A small crack unit of German Panzers that are well supplied are going to laugh at 3-1 odds by masses of Russian conscripts that are basically out of supply. The Russians don't have anything in their TO&E that can hurt the tanks...They need divine intervention just to kill them. Every dead tank the Germans suffer has a story behind it that involves some one getting the Order of Lenin.
On the other hand attacking at 1-3 by massed panzers with heavy air and artillery support against some mass of ill trained conscripts can work...better to throw in enough infantry to help in the attack to help with the killing but its not required. In general its much more benificial to insure that you have combined arms stacks then ones with big odds. If you don't have anything that has a reasonable chance of killing a tank and the defender has lots of tanks or assault guns then adding more guys that cannot kill a tank helps a hell of a lot less then adding a smaller unit with some good tank killing potential. So when you do counter attack try and have a some good combined armes forces. You want infantry to dish out firepower and soak it up, tanks to kill enemy tanks as well as artillery to help with the killing of enemy infantry and airpower to add to the carnage. For the attacker that wants to break out having motorized infantry along with the tanks helps...they will be able to exploit the succsess even if 2/3rds of the round has been used up while basic infantry will probably not be able to as they don't have enough MPs left. Finally get your hands on as many recon type assets as you can. They add a great deal to the side that has the recon advantage and more is better. This is one of the 'secret' German advantages in this scenario and many other East Front scenarios. The basic German units usually have better recon then their Russian counterpart hence they tend to have this advantage in every battle they fight. If your assaults are being slaughtered and they barely effected the defenders at all its a good bet that you are loosing the recon battle and therefore getting thrown back with heavy losses before you even get much of a chance to fight.
Isnt it an advantage to start with your noncritical attacks on min losses.
As u then can launch multiple attacks on min losses and?
Not sure whats being said here?
Will a stacked attack with 6 units burn less of your round than six units attacking from different hexes?
No. Not that I have been able to truely fathom what makes rounds continue or not...but certianly I don't think that attacks from a single hex have less chance of using up more of the round then attacks from multiple hexs. In fact attacks from multiple hexs might get a concentric assault bonus in some cases...which can help or hinder depending on the circumstances. It hinders things when the attack was futile and just goes on and on and this bonus keeps your forces fighting when really you would rather that they just give it up and stop wasting your combat phases.
JeremyMacDonald
26 Nov 03, 04:31
Throwing up my own piece of advice here on building a better defence.
Always remember that you can break your own units down. Furthermore so long as there is any kind of defending unit in the hex other units stacked with this unit can usually withdraw without suffering disengagement attacks. So when the nasty Huns break through your line try taking some relitivly weak unit..breaking it into three and moving these component pieces on top of your better large units. Then retreat these good units back to the new line. The guys that just got broken down are not likely to manage to follow the retreat but just loosing them is a hell of a lot better then loosing everyone in some big encirclement. This is a scenario where the German player usually wins be first destroying the Russian army as a fighting force and then after basically wrecking it moves on to take the objective hexs. So work hard to preserve your army if your the Russians. If you can deny the Germans big victories and always manage to slip most of your forces away back to the new line you have a good chance of really frustrating your opponents designs. In this context counter attacks can be counter productive. As often as not your massing of forces just leads to the Germans getting even a bigger encirclement. Keep your army in being should be your primary objective. Don't throw it away and you have a chance of eventually building lines the German player can't break when the shock runs out and the panzers have all run out of supply and the weather is turning bad.
I suspect that you should start trying to divorce yourself from thinking in these terms at all. Speaking for myself I simply don't ask myself what the 'odds' are on an attack in this format at all. I think Southern Dandy is basically saying the same thing...he does not think of attacks as being 2-1 or 3-1 odds. In fact I would argue that this is one of the highlights of the TOAW system. Historically nobody sat around calculating the 'odds' except maybe the late war Russians and they found that thier calculations failed as often as they succeeded. Sure numbers play a factor but one really needs to get to 'know' their army becuase every army in TOAW...in fact every force in every scenario plays differently - some armies can routinely do things that others find almost impossible - there is often a potent combat arm that must be utilized to the max if one wants to get the most out of their army as well. In World War II scenarios the Germans are usually looking to the tanks to be the arm of descision, for the British it often (but not always) the artillery thats the true god of war and for the Americans one should look to the skies.
There are so many factors feeding into this equation that its impossible to make a simplistic reply or work on basic principles like 3-1 odds is good. The difference in proficiency, supply and readyness have a big impact. Exactly whats in the attacking and defending hexs make all the difference in the world. A small crack unit of German Panzers that are well supplied are going to laugh at 3-1 odds by masses of Russian conscripts that are basically out of supply. The Russians don't have anything in their TO&E that can hurt the tanks...They need divine intervention just to kill them. Every dead tank the Germans suffer has a story behind it that involves some one getting the Order of Lenin
Just out of curiosity, where should the russians look? :)
Ok i can see your point, so u basically need to know the composition of the defending units and your own to calculate your chance of succes. And even then the supply and proficiency murks the waters.
I guess it works the other way around, if i counterattack with armor against his infantry wont he have the same problem, that he needs divine intervention to kill my tanks?
It just doesnt add up in my (meager) experince my armor doesnt do well against his infantry. I read somewhere that u should use artillery to kill infantry, as my artillery usually is dug in, its very hard to get them to help in counterattacks, without risking that they wont be available as support when he launches attacks the next round.
On the other hand attacking at 1-3 by massed panzers with heavy air and artillery support against some mass of ill trained conscripts can work...better to throw in enough infantry to help in the attack to help with the killing but its not required. In general its much more benificial to insure that you have combined arms stacks then ones with big odds. If you don't have anything that has a reasonable chance of killing a tank and the defender has lots of tanks or assault guns then adding more guys that cannot kill a tank helps a hell of a lot less then adding a smaller unit with some good tank killing potential. So when you do counter attack try and have a some good combined armes forces. You want infantry to dish out firepower and soak it up, tanks to kill enemy tanks as well as artillery to help with the killing of enemy infantry and airpower to add to the carnage. For the attacker that wants to break out having motorized infantry along with the tanks helps...they will be able to exploit the succsess even if 2/3rds of the round has been used up while basic infantry will probably not be able to as they don't have enough MPs left. Finally get your hands on as many recon type assets as you can. They add a great deal to the side that has the recon advantage and more is better. This is one of the 'secret' German advantages in this scenario and many other East Front scenarios. The basic German units usually have better recon then their Russian counterpart hence they tend to have this advantage in every battle they fight. If your assaults are being slaughtered and they barely effected the defenders at all its a good bet that you are loosing the recon battle and therefore getting thrown back with heavy losses before you even get much of a chance to fight.
Isnt it an advantage to start with your noncritical attacks on min losses.
As u then can launch multiple attacks on min losses and?
Not sure whats being said here?
I can understand that, what i meant was that, shouldnt u start with all the noncritical attacks. If u conduct them on min losses, u are more likely to have the chance of getting an extra round where u can conduct your important attacks?
At the same time u get two rounds of combat and will then have a higher chance og succes for the attacks conducted on min losses. (Its hard to explain, but its pretty much a question of in which order u should plan your attacks, critical first or last)
I havent paid any attention whatsoever to recon, i guess i should start doing that.
No. Not that I have been able to truely fathom what makes rounds continue or not...but certianly I don't think that attacks from a single hex have less chance of using up more of the round then attacks from multiple hexs. In fact attacks from multiple hexs might get a concentric assault bonus in some cases...which can help or hinder depending on the circumstances. It hinders things when the attack was futile and just goes on and on and this bonus keeps your forces fighting when really you would rather that they just give it up and stop wasting your combat phases.
Thx for pointing that out, i couldnt understand why it should be necessary to stack units.
JeremyMacDonald
27 Nov 03, 05:47
Just out of curiosity, where should the russians look? :)
At the Calander...winter is coming and reinforcments are on the way.
Ok i can see your point, so u basically need to know the composition of the defending units and your own to calculate your chance of succes.
You can't calculate your chance of sucsess. Its impossible to deal with all the numbers. What you can do is increase or decrease your chances and 'get' to know your army. Then you will know if you have a good or a bad chance of sucsess. Certianly have some basic idea of whats in the defending and attacking units helps but it should be a broad understanding. Do they have tanks? Yes/no. If so is it lots or only a few? Are they invulnerable behomiths or something that what I have has a reasonable chance against?
And even then the supply and proficiency murks the waters.
I guess it works the other way around, if i counterattack with armor against his infantry wont he have the same problem, that he needs divine intervention to kill my tanks?
Depends on what kind of tanks you have...and how many anti-tank guns and supporting assualt guns he has got. Plus Germans have good proficiency...it helps...plus Russians often have bad proficicemcy...it hurts. That said even as the Germans I avoid Russian tanks. Especially if he has a shock bonus. All this said if you counter attack with T-34s against German units that no longer have a shock bonus and have gone red from supply shortage and you have enough units to make a real difference I bet he gets forced back.
It just doesnt add up in my (meager) experince my armor doesnt do well against his infantry. I read somewhere that u should use artillery to kill infantry, as my artillery usually is dug in, its very hard to get them to help in counterattacks, without risking that they wont be available as support when he launches attacks the next round.
Yeah...this can definitly be a problem. You do want the artillery to bombard on the other hand you also want it to be around to support. I would be making this choice case by case. How important is the attack and how important is the artillery to the defence of the area being your prime considerations. Artillery is not a huge factor in this acenario I believe however as the scale is 20km. Once the scale is large enough that artillery can no longer fire 2 hexs their use drops dramatically. Now they are little more then small units with lots of firepower.
I can understand that, what i meant was that, shouldnt u start with all the noncritical attacks. If u conduct them on min losses, u are more likely to have the chance of getting an extra round where u can conduct your important attacks?
It depends on the scenario. In this one I think there is a fairly large risk that the Russians will lose their turn. I am pretty sure their force proficiency is pretty low. If its a really important attack...say the one thats going to get those 10 divisions back in supply...then you might want to be doing it in the first combat round just in case there is no second combat round. Also the importance of the attack does not isteslf effect whether or not you get more rounds. However I am not to clear exactly what does effect the number of rounds one gets. If I could just figure this out I could insure that I got lots of rounds. I often seem to find that the more desperatly I need multiple rounds the less liekly I am to get them...go figure. Personally I don't think anyone actually knows haw this works. I've been in a match recently where I have been carefully counting how many combat phases have been used in each attack. So far when the turn has continued its never been with a percentage of the round left that is equal to the longest attack. Sometimes I have 30% of the round remaining and my longest attack took 5 combat phases and sometimes I have 20% of the round remaining when its quite clear that the turn ought to be over as this 20% has been used up.
Since I don't believe that anyone actually understands this I suggest you experiment a bit and work out what works for you.
At the same time u get two rounds of combat and will then have a higher chance og succes for the attacks conducted on min losses. (Its hard to explain, but its pretty much a question of in which order u should plan your attacks, critical first or last)
I can't see why an attack would have more chance of working later in the turn as opposed to earlier except in the case where you soften up the defending hex first with a soak off and artillery support.
I havent paid any attention whatsoever to recon, i guess i should start doing that.
If your attacking it should be a important consideration. It helps if you are trying to defend a key point as well. Stack in some recon and your opponent will have a more troublesome time...the weak part of this is that its difficult to figire out where your opponent is going to strike making it difficult to figure out where to place the recon. Especially since your opponent might well work under a paradigmn of attack wherever the enemy has not prepared really good defences.
Ok, that's a new one on me, Jeremy. Are you saying that putting a recon unit into a hex you know will be attacked will increase the defence beyond just the standard strength of the unit itself?
Can you describe in greater detail what exactly you're talking about here?
Ok, that's a new one on me, Jeremy. Are you saying that putting a recon unit into a hex you know will be attacked will increase the defence beyond just the standard strength of the unit itself?
Can you describe in greater detail what exactly you're talking about here?
Recon % modifies combat values for the first round of any combat (and only the first round).
Oh, ok; that rings a bell. But that can be any unit with a high recon %, it doesn't actually have to be a recon unit, correct? And is this done on a unit by unit basis, or is the best value for the stack taken?
Oh, ok; that rings a bell. But that can be any unit with a high recon %, it doesn't actually have to be a recon unit, correct? And is this done on a unit by unit basis, or is the best value for the stack taken?
Any unit with any recon gets this bonus. It only counts for that one unit as well, not the entire stack. I'm basing this on the manual wording and not actually looking at the toaw log though.
A stack full of units with recon might compound their recon values to observe adjacent hexes though I'm not sure about that.
Any unit with any recon gets this bonus. It only counts for that one unit as well, not the entire stack. I'm basing this on the manual wording and not actually looking at the toaw log though.
A stack full of units with recon might compound their recon values to observe adjacent hexes though I'm not sure about that.
That's completely new to me. :surprise: :surprise: :surprise:
No wonder they're my favorite units. :D
JeremyMacDonald
29 Nov 03, 08:15
Any unit with any recon gets this bonus. It only counts for that one unit as well, not the entire stack. I'm basing this on the manual wording and not actually looking at the toaw log though.
A stack full of units with recon might compound their recon values to observe adjacent hexes though I'm not sure about that.
Hmmm. I always presumed that the recon value was done as a comparison between the total attackers recon versus the total defenders recon. Thats the impression I got back when I was reading Norms posts on the topic many many moons ago. Its hard to comprehend how this works if its just any unit with a recon rating...most units have a recon rating of some kind if they are above the company level. Do they all get the bonus? Thats certianly not the impression. Norm talks about a recon advantage in his posts on the topic. One has a recon advantage when one has more recon then the other guy.
Certianly I find that it helps quite a bit to have a recon advantage in any attack and in fact I definitly find that in scenarios where its difficult to gain recon advantages its usually also a lot more difficult to break a defencive line. Everything just gets a lot more sticky.
I guess its just my personal experience that this comboed with the minimize attack tactic helps a great deal in breaking a defencive line if you can get a slew of combat rounds. Minimize attacks with a recon advantage always seemed to work better then ones without this advantage.
But it would be interesting to get a difinitive answer.
Hmmm. I always presumed that the recon value was done as a comparison between the total attackers recon versus the total defenders recon. Thats the impression I got back when I was reading Norms posts on the topic many many moons ago. Its hard to comprehend how this works if its just any unit with a recon rating...most units have a recon rating of some kind if they are above the company level. Do they all get the bonus? Thats certianly not the impression. Norm talks about a recon advantage in his posts on the topic. One has a recon advantage when one has more recon then the other guy.
Certianly I find that it helps quite a bit to have a recon advantage in any attack and in fact I definitly find that in scenarios where its difficult to gain recon advantages its usually also a lot more difficult to break a defencive line. Everything just gets a lot more sticky.
I might be wrong, as I said I just took the manual wording.. someone using the toaw log to figure out for sure would be easy enough, but I'm much too lazy to do this :).
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.