Fungwu
Member
There are 2 problems I ran into in combats, one was fortified German regiments that would never retreat. So for instance the combat would be 500 soviet rifle squads and 50 tanks vs 35 German rifle squads. Maybe 9 times out of 10 the result would be 3-10 German losses and the combat fails.
The other problem was that small fortified armor units would take virtually no casualties on defense, whether they retreated or not. For instance, an attack by 100 tanks against a unit of 20 flammpanzers, which have an Anti tank value of 0, and light armor. The German tanks would hold on for a long time, and if they did retreat they would never lose more than 2 tanks. The same problem occurred against stugs, but since flammpanzers have neither armor nor guns it puts the problem in more stark contrast.
Bob might be on to something and the reason that the attack fails is because the units give up before it begins, but they are on ignore losses. I guess there are only a few possibilities Either the attacking tanks aren't shooting at the defenders at all, or they are shooting but missing.
Even a totally crappy tank unit that gets beaten in combat will usually lose very few tanks as long as it is defending. Attacking tanks however seem to take a reasonable amount of casualties.
In terms of realism it all isn't very good. For instance, 36 rifle squads is only about a battalion. So it would be pretty difficult for a battalion to defend a 10km front against 2 or 3 divisions. If you switched the scale to 2.5km a hex instead of 10km and used the exact same forces the result would be the Germans could only cover 1 hex out of 4 and the Soviets would either surround them before the combat began, or bypass them completely. Turn the scale up a little and that same battalion can defend the area, perhaps even better than a regiment would because the battalion will take less casualties from artillery. I don't think fiddling the scale up or down should completely change the dynamics of the battle, but it does.
There is already a penalty for having too much density in a hex, I think part of the solution is adding a penalty for having too little.
The other problem was that small fortified armor units would take virtually no casualties on defense, whether they retreated or not. For instance, an attack by 100 tanks against a unit of 20 flammpanzers, which have an Anti tank value of 0, and light armor. The German tanks would hold on for a long time, and if they did retreat they would never lose more than 2 tanks. The same problem occurred against stugs, but since flammpanzers have neither armor nor guns it puts the problem in more stark contrast.
Bob might be on to something and the reason that the attack fails is because the units give up before it begins, but they are on ignore losses. I guess there are only a few possibilities Either the attacking tanks aren't shooting at the defenders at all, or they are shooting but missing.
Even a totally crappy tank unit that gets beaten in combat will usually lose very few tanks as long as it is defending. Attacking tanks however seem to take a reasonable amount of casualties.
In terms of realism it all isn't very good. For instance, 36 rifle squads is only about a battalion. So it would be pretty difficult for a battalion to defend a 10km front against 2 or 3 divisions. If you switched the scale to 2.5km a hex instead of 10km and used the exact same forces the result would be the Germans could only cover 1 hex out of 4 and the Soviets would either surround them before the combat began, or bypass them completely. Turn the scale up a little and that same battalion can defend the area, perhaps even better than a regiment would because the battalion will take less casualties from artillery. I don't think fiddling the scale up or down should completely change the dynamics of the battle, but it does.
There is already a penalty for having too much density in a hex, I think part of the solution is adding a penalty for having too little.
