Slitherine

captainjack wrote:I'm near certain that the British SE units also have fortkiller - given what they specialised in that makes sense.

Yeah, it would be good to know what special abilities the SAS has (if that's who you are talking about). They aren't in my copy of the equipment list.

The SAS are paratroopers, so they have the fortkiller trait. The Commando unit doesn't really have special traits, just good stats. But it is a bit strange that the US Rangers have fortkiller and the Commando doesn't.

ThvN wrote:The SAS are paratroopers, so they have the fortkiller trait. The Commando unit doesn't really have special traits, just good stats. But it is a bit strange that the US Rangers have fortkiller and the Commando doesn't.

Also strange that in PG Rangers had parachute capability as I recall and in PzC they don't.

LRDG and the SAS were originally ground troops used for sabotage and recon missions behind enemy lines in the desert. SAS were typically also paratroopers - so they should have paradrop attribute (I never thought to check for that, but I'm usually very bad at using paras so wouldn't normally worry about it). Anyway, blowing up fuel dumps, aircraft installations etc sounds like a perfect excuse for Fortkiller, but for some reason LRDG don't have it and nor do commandos whose speciality was coastal raiding on structures fortifications and facilities.

The availability dates for SAS and Commandos are a bit odd, as commandos were formed after the fall of France, yet are available in 1939. However, in Allied Corps you can't get any SE units in the early scenarios, so it probably works out OK in the end.

After playing many games and reading many posts on combat mechanics, I found that for those who just want to play the game (and are not aficionados of the game mechanics for its own sake) it is a waste of time to study this - just use the combat prediction window, and that's all you need to know. Depending on your style of play and specific situation in a given scenario (i.e. whether you are playing catch up and need to conquer faster to achieve DV, or you still have plenty of time), attack only if the predicted loss is zero. If not, suppress further with arty/strat bomb. or degrade with air (especially armor and enemy arty behind the target with tactical bombers), and bring more units for a mass attack advantage (very often a -1 predicted loss turns into a 0 with an add'l unit brought to bear). Another tactic is to first attack with an auxiliary unit, then re-supress the weakened enemy before attacking with a core unit. If you regularly attack with even a seemingly favorable predictor of 5,6,7 or more to -1 eventually you will lose too much prestige, because the first losses are the most costly in terms of overstrength replacement.

My typical style of play is to move a unit for an attack, check the prediction, if you don't like it, use the "back" button to return the unit. I'd say most of the play time should be spent on this...

verstaubtgesicht wrote: If you regularly attack with even a seemingly favorable predictor of 5,6,7 or more to -1 eventually you will lose too much prestige, because the first losses are the most costly in terms of overstrength replacement.

You've managed to sum up good combat planning and good prestige management in one clear statement. Well done!

So what you're saying is

a) you should overstrength units, and b) because of a) you should avoid combats where the predictor predicts ANY loss.

This will kind of automatically lead to "correct" (optimum) tactics, where you soften up and surround targets before attacking, yet don't waste prestige.

Yes?

Molve wrote:So what you're saying is

a) you should overstrength units, and b) because of a) you should avoid combats where the predictor predicts ANY loss.

This will kind of automatically lead to "correct" (optimum) tactics, where you soften up and surround targets before attacking, yet don't waste prestige.

Yes?

Yes,
one cool thing that I was not aware of until recently is that if you take a unit that you are preparing to attack you can hold ctrl shift while clicking on the unit you want to attack and you will get a prediction of the expected results, this has helped my planning considerably, and I use it often to minimize damage.

Molve wrote:a) you should overstrength units, and b) because of a) you should avoid combats where the predictor predicts ANY loss.

My thinking is more along the lines of
a) Be aware of the cost of overstrength and use it wisely. It can be very powerful but the most expensive extra point is always the first one lost.
b) Attack because you think it's useful, rather than just because you are in contact.

Both approaches will help with prestige management, but the level of overstrength and risks you take on attack may well vary for each unit.

Meant to post a link to this topic, but missed and posted to it instead.
But the info is here, so I will let it stay

Thanks dalfrede!

Maybe I've missed it, but how much is the initiative penalty when attacking a tank with a fixed turret AT (mentioned in the in game Library)?

I just started playing the game but I like to overstrength the artillery if there is enough prestige as well as the fighter units at the beginning. When I played Panzer General 2, I would overstrength the longer ranged AFV units but not those with a range of "1" since those points are lost quicker.

As far as tanks vs tank destroyers, tanks have the initiative. I would guess that is because it is easier and quicker to turn a turret than to try and turn the whole vehicle, especially if your units are not in flat, open country.

From page 18 in the manual:

"ANTI-TANK
AT Weapons are designed and used primary against enemy armour. Even self-
propelled anti-tank units are less flexible and versatile than tanks, because they
are less effective against soft targets. Also, most of them are equipped with a fixed
turret, which makes them less suited for the offensive (attacking a tank with a fixed turret
AT results in an initiative penalty to the AT unit). But they excel in a defensive role, effectively
protecting choke points from an enemy armour breakthrough. They are also much cheaper to
produce, and so can be valuable assets in case resources are scarce."

So the amount of the initiative penalty is not stated there just that there is a penalty.

However on page 23 of the manual there is this about the initiative on the unit description. The symbol on the unit screen is the two AFVs under the range symbol. I presume that the computer compares each unit's initiative to get the actual difference, adjust by leadership or any other factors applicable.

"INITIATIVE
Initiative is a complex measure of unit’s gun range, optics, manoeuvrability and
training, which indicates how much damage the unit can do before the enemy has
a chance to shoot back. The bigger your initiative advantage, the more strength
you can kill/suppress before the enemy counterattacks you, and so the less effective this
counterattack will be."

I love to see that people are still just started playing the game in 2022!!

Well, I bought it late last fall/early winter when it was both on sale plus my anniversary coupon. I used to play Panzer General 2 a lot and I need other games to play when I take a break from playing a much larger game called WITP:AE!

Beyond the initiative cap and the use of "Close Defence" instead of "Ground Defence", are there any other advantages that infantry get for fighting vs non-infantry in close terrain? Given that infantry still has a pretty low "Close Defence" stat, it seems like in theory given all of the above information, tanks and infantry should be fairly evenly matched in close terrain, but in practice, infantry has a massive advantage vs tanks in close terrain. Is there some other factor I'm forgetting about?

2allophyl
interesting question. perhaps you neglect the experience difference, which is often the case in practice?

allophyl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:03 am Beyond the initiative cap and the use of "Close Defence" instead of "Ground Defence", are there any other advantages that infantry get for fighting vs non-infantry in close terrain? . . .

Infantry Init is not capped.
So they shoot first. With CD=0, shooting first is a big deal.

dalfrede wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 5:25 pm

allophyl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:03 am Beyond the initiative cap and the use of "Close Defence" instead of "Ground Defence", are there any other advantages that infantry get for fighting vs non-infantry in close terrain? . . .

Infantry Init is not capped.
So they shoot first. With CD=0, shooting first is a big deal.

Ah, I didn't realize that infantry doesn't get its initiative capped, that makes a lot more sense now! Thank you

Is it possible to edit the combat odds tables?
Is there any pzdat file?
Or are them hardcoded?

I want to edit the odds tables with something like that...

Miss Supressed Hits
10 12 44 44
9 16 42 42
8 20 40 40
7 24 38 38
6 28 36 36
5 32 34 34
4 36 32 32
3 40 30 30
2 44 28 28
1 48 26 26
0 52 24 24
-1 56 22 22
-2 60 20 20
-3 64 18 18
-4 68 16 16
-5 72 14 14
-6 76 12 12
-7 80 10 10
-8 84 8 8
-9 88 6 6
-10 92 4 4