Few Questions

[jokerrr88]

To give you a scenario to show you how silly the rule is take this example:

(Actual History)

Tank A attacks Tank B on the battlefield in the wheat fields of Russia during WW2. Tank A has a High Velocity Main Gun and it is accurate at further ranges then its counter part so it begins to knock of the oposing force little by little at ranges of 2100m where Tank B can not accurately return fire.

(Fantasy World)

Tank A attacks Tank B on the battlefield in the streets of Stalingrad during WW2. Tank A has a High Velocity Main Gun and it is accurate at further ranges then its counter part so it begins to knock of the oposing force little by little at ranges of 2100m where Tank B can not accurately return fire.

(Absurd World)

Tank A attacks Tank B on the battlefield in the thick forest of Hürtgen Forest during WW2. Tank A has a High Velocity Main Gun and it is accurate at further ranges then its counter part so it begins to knock of the oposing force little by little at ranges of 2100m where Tank B can not accurately return fire.

Where currently at Absurd World.

[El_Condoro]

What Kerensky seems to be saying is that, because there is no Close Attack value, tanks must use their normal HA value when attacking another tank. If the defender used its Close Defence value there would be a lot of big kills of tanks in close terrain with the attacker suffering very little in return.

[jokerrr88]

What needs to be done is the Attack value of a unit needs edited as well in a Close enviroment because just like there defense there full attack value is hindered by the enviroment. Makes no sense to edit one but not the other.

[jokerrr88]

What Kerensky seems to be saying is that, because there is no Close Attack value, tanks must use their normal HA value when attacking another tank. If the defender used its Close Defence value there would be a lot of big kills of tanks in close terrain with the attacker suffering very little in return.

LOL replied just as you posted.

[Kerensky]

Well the concept of Close Combat means... throwing grenades down hatches, attaching sticky mines to treads, or lobbing molotov cocktails into open top vehicles. Something only infantry can do, and only do within the confines of very restricted locales such as city streets.

Even at point blank range, a Sherman is still shooting the armor of a Tiger. The Sherman tank isn't climbing on top of the Tiger to drop a shell down the hatch. (lol I just had a hilarious mental image of what that might look like)

And for the record, I happen to agree. Tanks should be governed by different rules in close terrain, just as infantry. And they are, somewhat, by the changes to initiative.
These pictures illustrate exactly how important close terrain already matters. Even in tank battles.

In the open, it's a massacre.





In close terrain, it's a whole different game.





So in the end, is what you are asking for not already implemented? In close quarters, the initiative difference becomes moot, and tanks with great initiative (gun range) lose that advantage. I think it might be nice to see tanks have Close Attack values to use against other tanks, but that's all it would be. Just nice. Not necessary.

[jokerrr88]

Ok that makes sense I can live with that, although I never see those types of results usually its the same as if it where open ground.

[TheGrayMouser]

Remember that this game is abstract and NOT a tactical level game. At least in the base game, units are divisions and hexes are 10-20k in width

All I want is a good aproximation of combined arms warfare and interplay between the basic unit types(which the original game did VERY well)
so imho what we have now that accomplishes this(and what doesnt) is

tank vs tank in open, big guns/armour should win Yes
tank vs tank in close, big guns ( ie initaive) mean less and is an equalizer Yes
tank vs antitank, AT advantage (my guess post 1.4) Yes
infantry vs inf open, no advantage to either, use Gound Defence Yes
tanks vs infantry in close, tanks should suffer heavily NO!
(all close does is make tanks use lower close defence and cap initiave but most late war tanks soft attack is so high they STILL clobber infantry in cities and take little damage in return)
infantry vs infantry in close, combat shouldnt be more "decisive" No!
(coupled with massed attacks/move shoot the defending infantry cannot ever really hold out in rough terrian)
any vs entrenched, not only should the entrneched defnder get a defence bonus, the attacker should suffer more NO!

[Kerensky]

Ok that makes sense I can live with that, although I never see those types of results usually its the same as if it where open ground.

Oh believe me, the devil is undoubtedly in the details.

The British and American tanks absolutely thrive in close terrain, it's the only place they stand a chance to take on German armor. And that, if I'm not mistaken, is very historical. German tanks dominated open terrain combat with long ranges and great visibility, but were more vulnerable when Allied armor utilized ambush tactics in say.... somewhere that had a lot of Bocage?
It's very risky though, because in this game German infantry can make mincemeat of them in those terrains.

We talked about this a little in this thread here, you're more than welcome to read our conclusions join the discussion too.
viewtopic.php?t=28892

[Longasc]

I second this, Gray Mouser.

Infantry attacking out of a forest fights on the terrain type of the defender. If it's clear terrain, both use ground defense.

If the enemy attacks into the forest, both use the close defense value. So basically the defender gets weakened for fighting in restricted terrain. Hmm...

Not true are you adding entrenchment bonus to that scenario?

You make a good point, the attacker doesn't the terrain bonus of the defender. Thinking about that the attacker gets more penalized.
Still, +2 Close Defense is what all Infantry units have, add +3 for a city and you are still at 5 compared to the usual 7-8 Ground Defense.

But I get your point and thinking about it... yes, it makes sense that close defense works like that.

[Rudankort]

tanks vs infantry in close, tanks should suffer heavily NO!
(all close does is make tanks use lower close defence and cap initiave but most late war tanks soft attack is so high they STILL clobber infantry in cities and take little damage in return)

Close terrain caps the initiative of tanks, while infantry initiative remains uncapped, and in some terrains like cities this is pretty important. Note that in 1.04 this part was tweaked a little bit - before 1.04 tanks got a good bonus to initiative from experience and could workaround this rule, especially in late scens. With 1.04, even late tanks with high experience will take more casualties. However, while tanks with high SA ratings get high casualties themselves, they do inflict damage to defending infantry too. Their powerful guns do have effect. I think that our existing mechanics works pretty much as it should. Though some stats tweaks might be in order still, so any specific examples of units which do not work well enough are welcome.

infantry vs infantry in close, combat shouldnt be more "decisive" No!

Well, to me it seems normal that in the open terrain with clear front line and good visibility infantry units will take fewer casualties than in a city where everything is a big mess. Note that fortification terrain is actually open, this is where defending infantry becomes very persistent. But, as I said, not in cities/forests.

(coupled with massed attacks/move shoot the defending infantry cannot ever really hold out in rough terrian)

When fully suppressed with artillery fire and bomber attacks, and facing several infantry units simultaneously, yes, it cannot. Why should it?

I also don't think it is a good idea from gameplay point of view. Just think how many close terrain hexes are there on a typical map. Imagine that you can create a bottleneck on each such hex by placing a single infantry unit there, and even a coordinated mass attack of combined enemy forces would need several turns to route it out . It would make the life of attacker very very hard indeed.

any vs entrenched, not only should the entrneched defnder get a defence bonus, the attacker should suffer more NO!

I think that entrenchment in the game works similarly to how it worked in RL. Entrenchment gives you defense, and it might give you a more favorable firing position (which is simulated by rugged defense in the game). But it does not make your weapon stronger, so no attack bonus is given to defender.

[Fimconte]

I think that entrenchment in the game works similarly to how it worked in RL. Entrenchment gives you defense, and it might give you a more favorable firing position (which is simulated by rugged defense in the game). But it does not make your weapon stronger, so no attack bonus is given to defender.

Perhaps a Initiative bonus for the defender then?
As they are in a defensive position, they'll be able to spot the enemy earlier?

Alternatively a attack bonus could be reasoned as mine-fields / killzones (although this can be considered as a initiative advantage).

[TheGrayMouser]

tanks vs infantry in close, tanks should suffer heavily NO!
(all close does is make tanks use lower close defence and cap initiave but most late war tanks soft attack is so high they STILL clobber infantry in cities and take little damage in return)

Close terrain caps the initiative of tanks, while infantry initiative remains uncapped, and in some terrains like cities this is pretty important. Note that in 1.04 this part was tweaked a little bit - before 1.04 tanks got a good bonus to initiative from experience and could workaround this rule, especially in late scens. With 1.04, even late tanks with high experience will take more casualties. However, while tanks with high SA ratings get high casualties themselves, they do inflict damage to defending infantry too. Their powerful guns do have effect. I think that our existing mechanics works pretty much as it should. Though some stats tweaks might be in order still, so any specific examples of units which do not work well enough are welcome.

infantry vs infantry in close, combat shouldnt be more "decisive" No!

Well, to me it seems normal that in the open terrain with clear front line and good visibility infantry units will take fewer casualties than in a city where everything is a big mess. Note that fortification terrain is actually open, this is where defending infantry becomes very persistent. But, as I said, not in cities/forests.

(coupled with massed attacks/move shoot the defending infantry cannot ever really hold out in rough terrian)

When fully suppressed with artillery fire and bomber attacks, and facing several infantry units simultaneously, yes, it cannot. Why should it?

I also don't think it is a good idea from gameplay point of view. Just think how many close terrain hexes are there on a typical map. Imagine that you can create a bottleneck on each such hex by placing a single infantry unit there, and even a coordinated mass attack of combined enemy forces would need several turns to route it out . It would make the life of attacker very very hard indeed.

any vs entrenched, not only should the entrneched defnder get a defence bonus, the attacker should suffer more NO!

I think that entrenchment in the game works similarly to how it worked in RL. Entrenchment gives you defense, and it might give you a more favorable firing position (which is simulated by rugged defense in the game). But it does not make your weapon stronger, so no attack bonus is given to defender.

Thanks for the response Rudenkort, although I must say I personally disagree with basically all your comments (please dont code a bullet to seak and destroy my PC)

I think your comment of "think of how it will effect gameplay" (if defenders were more tenacious) hits the nail on the head on the design decision of how the game plays out. I'mm guessing but methinks the design decision was to opt for a faster, more agrresive play style, a "super" blitz game and all the changes (from the original PG) and additional features (massed attacks move shoot etc) seem to fit into that scheme. No problemo, I dont expect changes just for little old me.

Ill just comment on one item
Entrenchments/close terrain : I agree, being fortified doesnt make your weapons stronger , but certainly can give you many advantages in enfilading fire, bottlenecks , chanelling of enemy forces etc. (and as fimconte pointed out, the abilty to maybe get a ist strike volley in ) I posted before on this topic but at the scale of the game, entrenchments arent simply a "shield" that just deflects bullets but can allow a defender to put massive hurt on the enemy that assaults If that was not the case why such slaughter in WW1 when massed assults on entrenched postioins resluted in not only few casualties on defenders but very heavy ones on attackers. If this was a WW 1 game, I dont think the feel would be right at all, of course its not, yet infantry vs infantry combat was not very far off from both wars in terms of weaponry used and squad/platoon level tactics.

Anyways, this is a great game, I just find the interplay of certain combats wanting, exasperated in later war scenarios. You asked if there were any specific units that needed adjusting and my answer is no , it isnt the stats that I think are the problem. A late war tank has such a disaparity in SA vs an infantries ground defence that entrechments, the initiative cap barely help. Also, experiance and the random initiative throw supercede the cap anyways, so tanks still often "win the initiave" attacking entrenched city defending infantry. 2 or three tanks (even IS2's) should not be able to destroy a 3-4 star infantry unit, entrencment level 4 in a single turn and take almost nothing in casualties, yet post 43 battles I see this all the time. ( and no , no artillery or air prep either)
You guys have been more than generous in opening up some of the files for modding.
Maybe allow us to set , alter, mod things like the effects of entrencment, inf defenders in close T getting a boost in HA values when attacked by armour etc, somewhere doen the road?
Cheers!

[jokerrr88]

Your telling me that you can attack or be attacked as a 3-4 star Inf in a city while being entrenched by a Tank and the tanks take no damage or hardly any?

Uhh Huhh!!!

Ok tell me a scenario you can reproduce this over and over because how your putting it this is the Norm so tell me a scenario that this happens to you on a regular basis, also tell me your game settings so I can have my game set exactly like yours to see this common occurance.

[TheGrayMouser]

Your telling me that you can attack or be attacked as a 3-4 star Inf in a city while being entrenched by a Tank and the tanks take no damage or hardly any?

Uhh Huhh!!!

Ok tell me a scenario you can reproduce this over and over because how your putting it this is the Norm so tell me a scenario that this happens to you on a regular basis, also tell me your game settings so I can have my game set exactly like yours to see this common occurance.

Yes , Ive seen it happen and yes, likly an exageration on my part that it happens over and over that way every singletime, but it is my observation and my gut telling me tanks can take out infantry too handily despite being in cities or if they are entrenched. Obviously in the earlier scenarios where tanks abilities are much less, the effect is not quite as prounounced.
Look at the combat stats of infantry vs tanks , then look at how initiative caps actually work vs how increased unit ability is actually applied by the game(favours units that have a high nominal stat to begin with, like tanks) and I think you might see why I think tanks are a tad too good vs infantry in close terrain. Its not the stats but how the engine applies them.

Anyways, I am merely expressing my opinion on how I would rather have the game play out , the developer has given his own thoughts and thats that, no need to uhh huuuh me
I can mod some of the stuff but hopefully we'll have other items open up someday to tinker with .

[Rudankort]

You asked if there were any specific units that needed adjusting and my answer is no , it isnt the stats that I think are the problem. A late war tank has such a disaparity in SA vs an infantries ground defence that entrechments, the initiative cap barely help. Also, experiance and the random initiative throw supercede the cap anyways, so tanks still often "win the initiave" attacking entrenched city defending infantry. 2 or three tanks (even IS2's) should not be able to destroy a 3-4 star infantry unit, entrencment level 4 in a single turn and take almost nothing in casualties, yet post 43 battles I see this all the time. ( and no , no artillery or air prep either)

As I said, we did a number of adjustments to address this issue specifically in 1.04. The tanks no longer win initiative in cities, even with high experience, and this was not the only change we did. There was a reason why late infantry units got +1 to initiative, late tanks got their close defense ratings reduced etc. You say yourself that the problem is more related to late war, in early war tanks get decimated when attacking infantry in close terrain hexes, and to me this proves the fact that the problem is in stats, not in game mechanics.

However, I will continue to watch out for such issues. My approach to balancing these things is to make small, incremental steps, or it is easy to create new problems instead of the old ones you are trying to fix. If changes made in 1.04 are not enough for game balance we are trying to achieve, more changes will follow in the next patches.

[soldier]

Your telling me that you can attack or be attacked as a 3-4 star Inf in a city while being entrenched by a Tank and the tanks take no damage or hardly any?

Yes Joker
Bagration before the patch. IS 2 belted any entrenched troop for no loss

[TheGrayMouser]

Ahh 1.04 I have not had time to play with the patch , didnt realize it was so comprehensive, cheers!

[soldier]

It does change things, tanks will get very badly hammered if they attack 43 infantry in cities, especially the allied tanks

[jokerrr88]

Your telling me that you can attack or be attacked as a 3-4 star Inf in a city while being entrenched by a Tank and the tanks take no damage or hardly any?

Yes Joker
Bagration before the patch. IS 2 belted any entrenched troop for no loss

I beg to differ I played that scenario atleast 50 times finding a way to beat it and found that Infantry in a closed enviroment to be the best unit against ANY Russian tank and I even posted in another thread with pics showing how to beat the scenario. I would place numerous infantry in cities and Mountains and they would weaken those tanks to a point I could easily kill them with my tanks hidden away. I saw numerous times my inf take out 3-5 tank strength points on an attack. I might add I never attacked with infantry I just sat there waiting to be attacked while in cities.

[soldier]

Well Bagration has been changed twice now, first off in 1.2 and now there are some new balance changes in 1.4. Although cautious at first, overtime i came to realise that the IS 2 was strong enough to bull through just about any troop in any scenario and quite often i used it as such with pretty good results. i could then follow up with infantry.
You suffered the odd casualty, sure and its not a recommended tactic but it seemed to work without too much risk back then. Definitely can't do it now.