Slitherine

soldier wrote:I think obviously if you have 1 PzIV unit vs 1 IS 2 unit, the panzers should get smashed, because in a one on one (or even numbers) clash they are out classed. Unfortunately in the game a ratio of 3 to in favour of the Germans still results in them getting thrashed. In this situation some panzers should be able to close in on the flanks or rear of the heavies and get within ranges that can penetrate. This is what the Russian T -34's did at Kursk.
I've mentioned before that the mass attack feature has little influence on combat situations like this where it should have an impact (eg - slow moving heavies being outnumbered and flanked) but seems to have more impact where it shouldn't ( eg an entrenched infantry unit in a town who should be able to defend a wider front with an economy of effort).

Having said that the IS 2 is an extraordinary tank, with side armour just as strong on the sides as it is at the front, while somehow managing to keep overall weight down and maintaining good speed. Its huge cannon is good at either assaulting troop positions or taking on tanks (but has low
ROF and ammo load).

Ah, now this is some outside of the box thinking! The ol' Iosef Stalin 2 was undeniably a very well-designed tank, but I REALLY like your idea of the slow, heavy tanks getting a special penalty against them with mass attack. THAT would really make things interesting and give the medium tanks a fighting chance as well as reflect actual historical realities.

At the moment mass attack reduces initiative by one for each extra unit.

Maybe for hard targets they should also get a reduction in defence to represent side/rear shots?

Horseman wrote:At the moment mass attack reduces initiative by one for each extra unit.

Maybe for hard targets they should also get a reduction in defence to represent side/rear shots?

viewtopic.php?t=21316&highlight=flanking

Thread creation, January 19th.
The end result of the discussion is that flanking doesn't really work all that well on this scale.
That said, some changes to mass attack are not out of the question.

Kerensky wrote:

Horseman wrote:At the moment mass attack reduces initiative by one for each extra unit.

Maybe for hard targets they should also get a reduction in defence to represent side/rear shots?

viewtopic.php?t=21316&highlight=flanking

Thread creation, January 19th.
The end result of the discussion is that flanking doesn't really work all that well on this scale.
That said, some changes to mass attack are not out of the question.

I actually remember reading that and agreeing with you

Similar topic in the BETA forum
viewtopic.php?t=27381

Rebalancing units is coming, but that doesn't mean nerfing the King Tiger or other heavies into oblivion, so there may be a tweak to mass attack formula to go along with it.

Sorry, but who mentioned flanking?

Horseman's suggestion was that in addition to the initiative penalty, hard units also take a defense penalty.

What this "represents" and what makes sense at different scales isn't very relevant. We're simply discussing counters on hexes in a game, after all.

The problem is specifically that in the late war era, mass attack bonuses aren't big enough to make any difference. The values of a late-war grizzled veteran behemoth simply can't be matched by superior tactics or numbers. If you only have Shermans you'll have to resort to the old "surround it and let it run out of ammo" tactic which feels unsatisfying.

There are solutions. Make mass attack bonuses relative, not absolute: say each unit instead of giving a plain +1 it will contribute 20% of its initiative to the attacker (not rounding until total is summed up: three PzIICs will give 4+4+4=12x20%=2.4 rounded to +2 while three PzIVHs will give 9+9+9=27x20%=5.6 rounded to +6). Or code a "desperate" mode where units get an offensive boost at the expense of lots of defense, ammunition and fuel (to simulate single-mindedly going after a target ignoring your overall safety) best used in the special case we're discussing here (when you have isolated a single enemy unit).

Or, indeed, Horseman's simple and neat suggestion! I fail to see why difficulties of scale and/or the cumbersome concept of facing needs to be brought into this.

Molve wrote:Sorry, but who mentioned flanking?

Horseman's suggestion was that in addition to the initiative penalty, hard units also take a defense penalty.

What this "represents" and what makes sense at different scales isn't very relevant. We're simply discussing counters on hexes in a game, after all.

The problem is specifically that in the late war era, mass attack bonuses aren't big enough to make any difference. The values of a late-war grizzled veteran behemoth simply can't be matched by superior tactics or numbers. If you only have Shermans you'll have to resort to the old "surround it and let it run out of ammo" tactic which feels unsatisfying.

There are solutions. Make mass attack bonuses relative, not absolute: say each unit instead of giving a plain +1 it will contribute 20% of its initiative to the attacker (not rounding until total is summed up: three PzIICs will give 4+4+4=12x20%=2.4 rounded to +2 while three PzIVHs will give 9+9+9=27x20%=5.6 rounded to +6). Or code a "desperate" mode where units get an offensive boost at the expense of lots of defense, ammunition and fuel (to simulate single-mindedly going after a target ignoring your overall safety) best used in the special case we're discussing here (when you have isolated a single enemy unit).

Or, indeed, Horseman's simple and neat suggestion! I fail to see why difficulties of scale and/or the cumbersome concept of facing needs to be brought into this.

Maybe for hard targets they should also get a reduction in defence to represent side/rear shots?

Kerensky, you're focusing on what his suggestion is supposed to represent. And not the suggestion in itself.

Let's discuss the core of the proposal instead: what do you all think of making the mass-attack modifier give +1 Init and -1 GD (Ground Defense) for hard defenders per included unit?

Molve wrote:Kerensky, you're focusing on what his suggestion is supposed to represent. And not the suggestion in itself.

Let's discuss the core of the proposal instead: what do you all think of making the mass-attack modifier give +1 Init and -1 GD (Ground Defense) for hard defenders per included unit?

I find myself agreeing with Molve here....what ever "fluff" reason we come up with the idea is to make medium takes more effective enmasse against the heavies

If Balaton is unwinnable, than Moscow 43, Bagration, Overlord and Ardennes are also the scenarios, where it is unable to make a DV. But it can be done.
With Rommel mode playing (maybe also with Manstein - I didn't try it) and with the 'short', defending campaigns, they are really impossible to win - expect Bagration, which I could master after many tries.
I could almost make a DV at Overlord, I was only about 2 turns ans 2 enemy units far away from it. But that was before the 1.04 changes. My tactics was to buy many cheap Ju87G's and attack with them the masses of Fireflies - I don't know, if that, after the changes, would success.

With Rommel and long campaign I could master (of cause after many tries!) these scenarios. But Balaton was even an impossible place to win. I have than tried even more times. Than I made a DV!
I had luck with the good weather (this was also the element, which made it possible to win at Moscow 43 - don't be confused: i played all path of the campaign).
I bought some Elefants - they are good on defending and have also chance to penetrate the soviet beasts. I upgraded my tanks to Panther G. Tiger II is too expensive, to slow, and even not so strong against the IS-2. Of cause, I had a strong fighter-presence, and several experienced Ju87G's and about 6 21cm artillery pieces.
The tactics was not to occupy on the first move the two cities, but instead make some full losses on enemy units and build a defense line, where non of your units can be so seriously attacked, that it will be destroyed. After the first clashes, I used the hills on the north to cover my advances to Budapest. I made always big attention to hide my weaker units from the enemy. I could make a fast air victory on the second turn, from there, my Ju87G's could do their job. With my force at the south (which was significant weaker, but had 3 strong Panthers), I made my way free to south, than sent 2 Panthers, and 2 guns to Mohacs. I made carefully steps with the weak auxiliary force to use them at the best. Sent two paratroopers also there from air. When everything was at their place, I made an all-in attack. It was still extreme hard, even, when the hidden waves of SU-100's appeared!
Meanwhile, I made the forward jump to Budapest, protecting my guns and inf from the south. So they could begin with the siege. Paid also attention not to leave unoccupied place west from Budapest, so not to leave any enemy armour, staying on the others side to cross. The other armour, which have not protected the siege force and the group from the south siede of the Balaton begun to move in the direction of the town Siófok. The air forces helped to weaker the enemy armour and the defending guns at Budapest. After several turns, about 2 turns before the DV-end, both Budapest and Siófok could be taken.
But Mohacs and Pecs was a hell! Even carefully and well planned tactics, it seemed, that I still cannot take my objectives. But at the end, I had some luck and than, in the last turn, with the last unit I had, I could finally take out that damn 57mm AT and taken the last objective!!
It was such a good feeling to made it at least!

So, I would suggest to have patience and try so long, still you have the tactics, which brings success. It worth it!

Let's see, 11 years late, but yes, DV on Balaton seems impossible, at least on the hardest difficulty. Russians have probably around 30 tanks/ATs on the map (IS2s, SU100s, etc). I had to sell several other units to put together a group of seven Tiger IIs (the only unit that can hold against Russian tanks). Supporting the Tigers (kept all alive) were four Panthers (being careful not leaving any on the front line, only lost one during the mission), three 21cm artillery units (upgraded to have the best chance of hitting Russian tanks, suppression is needed for surrenders), one AT gun (not easy to use here, but decided not to sell it and kept it alive), two infantry (to take the cities, two more inf are already on the map), five fighters (to kill their air force, all survived), three bombers (to suppress when weather allowed it), three tacs to mop up or soften enemy armor mostly.

All in all, MV is doable on the hardest difficulty, but DV no way. You would need at least something like 20 TigerIIs to clear that map in 10 turns. Who can afford that?