Slitherine

Why don't a tank fighting a tank in a "Close Combat" area use there Close Rating, they do on infantry but not another tank?

What Space Age Armor do trucks have, attack a truck with a tank and you hardly get any kills in ANY area even on bridges?

Why is a Ambush so weak on ground units, I see alot of ambushes in my game and see weak results from a Ambush I think that is wayyyy off, but in the Air a suprise encounter can be devastating why is Ground weak/Air Strong? I tend to think Ground should be like the Air.

Just wondering.

jokerrr88 wrote:Why don't a tank fighting a tank in a "Close Combat" area use there Close Rating, they do on infantry but not another tank?

Both tanks (attacker and defender) are using the same stats, no?
If the defender defended using the close defense stat, the attacker would also use its close defense stat to defend. Since most tanks have a 2 close defense stat, there wouldnt be much difference between a PzIA and a PzIVG.

jokerrr88 wrote:What Space Age Armor do trucks have, attack a truck with a tank and you hardly get any kills in ANY area even on bridges?

Arent trucks Soft targets?
In what year? If in the early years you would probably get better results if attacking with heavy infantry.

jokerrr88 wrote:Why is a Ambush so weak on ground units, ...

No idea.

1. Thats the problem NIETHER tank uses close defense or attack when both tanks are fighting in a close enviroment. Makes no sense and is opposite then what the rule of Close Combat is.

2. Any year trucks seem to have out of this world armor when being attacked by tanks, just would like to know the logic behind that.

The rules for close terrain combat are somewhat complicated.

Initiative
In close terrain, initiative is capped depending on the type of terrain, for instance, cities initiative cap = 1, hills = 5, for all units EXCEPT infantry. Infantry retain their full bonus. This is particularly significant for tank vs AT/tank, as the German tanks lose their advantage of generally superior initiative in forests/cities.

Infantry vs Infantry
They will shoot at each other'' close defense. Hence, in general, infantry will take more damage from each other in cities, forests, etc.

Infantry vs Tanks, AT, and probably most other unit types
I haven't examined the combat logs for every case, but I know infantry shoots at the close defense of tanks and AT while the tanks/AT shoot at the infantry's ground defense. I would imagine this is true for every other case, I just haven't examined the logs.

Tank vs Tank, etc.
Each shoots at the other's ground defense.

The game text does emphasize infantry is the king of close combat, and these mechanics are the primary reason why. What I want to see is a little footnote next to the text that states this, and the footnote explains why exactly.

As deducter explained and if I understood correctly, "close defense" simulate only one thing : the advantage that infantry can have over other units (including other infantries) when attacking or defending in close (hills, towns ...) terrain, when they can use cover and hide to attack enemy weak points (vs exchanging fire at range).

So only infantry in close terrain uses this value (whether on offense or defense). For every other case, its's "ground defense" (usually much higher). Any combat in open terrain use ground defense. A tank attacks only against the ground defense of its target, regardless of terrain.

To be more clear :
Infantry attacking a "soft" target in close terrain : soft attack value of the attacker vs close defense value of the defender
Infantry attacking a "hard" target in close terrain : hard attack value of the attacker vs close defense value of the defender
Non-infantry attacking a "soft" target in close terrain : soft attack value of the attacker vs ground defense value of the defender
Non-infantry attacking a "hard" target in close terrain : hard attack value of the attacker vs ground defense value of the defender
Any unit (infantry included) attacking a "soft" target in open terrain : soft attack value of the attacker vs ground defense value of the defender
Any unit (infantry included) attacking a "hard" target in open terrain : hard attack value of the attacker vs ground defense value of the defender

Then counterattacks use the same rules.


Trucks are "soft armor" targets. It really depends on the tank. Some tanks have low soft attack indeed. What kind of tank where you using ?

As a side note :

deducter wrote:The rules for close terrain combat are somewhat complicated.
Initiative
In close terrain, initiative is capped depending on the type of terrain, for instance, cities initiative cap = 1, hills = 5, for all units EXCEPT infantry. Infantry retain their full bonus. This is particular significant for tank vs AT/tank, as the German tanks lose their advantage of generally superior initiative in forests/cities.

If I understood correctly the recent balance changes notes :

All anti-tank units of all nations have had a slight rule change. Instead of a -3 modifier on the offensive, this has been changed to a +3 modifier on the defensive. The net result is that Anti-tank units should perform better in terrain with initiative caps when they are on the defensive. To adjust for this change, all anti-tank units of all nations have had their initiative reduced by three.

I assume this bonus is applied after the cap, so it helps AT units even further against tanks

Off topic but Infantry should NOT use their close defence value when fighting other infantry in close terrain. All it does is devalue the power of defence and the historically slow and attritional nature of fighting in dence forrests cities etc . Instead, as both units are using their very low close defence they both take heavy casualties very quickly....

This illustrates the need for a more detailed manual. I am not sure if a fan written manual is really a good idea, we simply don't know all modifiers and how should we.

Well put Deducter and what you stated is exactly what I was thinking. I just think that ANY units fighting in a close combat enviroment should have to use there "Close" defense rating because some tanks where better suited for close combat but where not suited for open terrain combat because there armor was not as good as frontline tanks, right now as we have it the tanks that work better in close enviroments are getting the shaft because they have to act like Heavy Tanks because the game overlooks there advantage when facing another tank in a close enviroment.


Example: "Battle of France" French tanks where suited for open terrain, they where heavly armored and slow. German tanks where quick and could fight in terrain not suited for Heavier Tanks that would get bogged down in the terrain and destroyed by a lesser tank. Many cases of a Pz2 knocking out a Char/Samoua just by flanking and destroying the engine of the tank and leaving the tank where it sits until something came along to finish it.

----------------------------------------

Good explanation kjed111 I still believe close terrian should be used regardless of unit if attacked or attacking, because trees, cities, and other close terrians do not magically disappear because your in a tank or other equipment, there still there and you still have to fight amongst it.

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...

Close Terrain has ALWAYS been where casualties have been high through out history so to me it is 100% correct making Infantry have to use close against infantry. Ask any soldier where it is the most deadly and Urban area will be tops on the list.

Longasc wrote: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?

If I understood correctly the recent balance changes notes :

All anti-tank units of all nations have had a slight rule change. Instead of a -3 modifier on the offensive, this has been changed to a +3 modifier on the defensive. The net result is that Anti-tank units should perform better in terrain with initiative caps when they are on the defensive. To adjust for this change, all anti-tank units of all nations have had their initiative reduced by three.

I assume this bonus is applied after the cap, so it helps AT units even further against tanks

Exactly. Put your towed AT unit or even a mobile AT unit in a forest or a city, and shoot first on attacking tanks. AT units are also awesome on the defense against tanks in bad weather, which severely limits initiative. I believe this rule only applies in tank vs AT combat, so you can attack with a Jagdpanther on a SU-100 and there won't be a +3 initiative for the SU-100. I think the rule should apply in any armored fighting vehicle (AFV) vs AT weapons.

One thing to note is that heroes ALWAYS apply their bonus, regardless of the type of combat. If you have a +3 defense hero on your PzIV, and it attacks into a city, it will get +3 close defense, for a 150% boost. Similarly, if you have a +3 initiative hero on a tank, it will gain +3 initiative over the initiative cap, for a 300% boost in a city. A +attack hero on an infantry is pretty awesome, since this is added to their hard attack, and such infantry become particularly deadly against tanks in close terrain.

Oh the entrenchment bonus, that's yet another complicated thing that I don't fully understand. I don't know whether entrenchment depends on terrain or the type of unit or not. I BELIEVE this is how it works:

Infantry vs. an Entrenched Unit:
Add 1/2 the value of the entrenchment level of the defending unit to its defense. This is insignificant for say a tank in a city, but can be significant for infantry vs. infantry. After all, an infantry attacking another infantry with 4 entrenchment will have 2 close defense vs. 4 close defense, a very significant defense boost for the defender.

Anything else vs. an Entrenched Unit:
Add the value of the entrenchment level of the defending unit to its defense. So a tank attacking an infantry with 5 entrenchment in a city will be fighting against the infantry's ground defense + 5, while the infantry hits back at the tank's close defense. A very, very bad idea for the tank. This entrenchment bonus also applies to bombarding artillery and air units.

Entrenchment at 2 or above will prevent a unit from retreating or surrendering. This can actually work in advantage of the attacker in rare cases.

jokerrr88 wrote:Close Terrain has ALWAYS been where casualties have been high through out history so to me it is 100% correct making Infantry have to use close against infantry. Ask any soldier where it is the most deadly and Urban area will be tops on the list.

More deadly OVER long periods of time maybe...
How long did the sieges of Stalingrad and lenigrad take? How about the Huertgen? Bastogne?
Would you rather be in an open field facing men with Garands , or somewhere where there is not only concielment but also cover?

Basically combats happen WAY to quick in any terrain where infantry vs infantry need to use close defence which means the tradional PG methods of dealing: artillery and airpower to weaken PRIOR to assaulting , and even then the attacker gets worse than the defender, is lacking .

and yes i do include entrenchment, my other gripe in this game. Entre does very little IMHO except to increase the defenders defnece but it also should increase the damages inflicted on the attcker.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

jokerrr88 wrote:Close Terrain has ALWAYS been where casualties have been high through out history so to me it is 100% correct making Infantry have to use close against infantry. Ask any soldier where it is the most deadly and Urban area will be tops on the list.

More deadly OVER long periods of time maybe...
How long did the sieges of Stalingrad and lenigrad take? How about the Huertgen? Bastogne?
Would you rather be in an open field facing men with Garands , or somewhere where there is not only concielment but also cover?

Basically combats happen WAY to quick in any terrain where infantry vs infantry need to use close defence which means the tradional PG methods of dealing: artillery and airpower to weaken PRIOR to assaulting , and even then the attacker gets worse than the defender, is lacking .

and yes i do include entrenchment, my other gripe in this game. Entre does very little IMHO except to increase the defenders defnece but it also should increase the damages inflicted on the attcker.

100% correct in stating that the close terrain kills alot over long amounts of time, but do we have a endless amount of turns? You have to balance it out then and come up with the best solution to give the effect of huge loses but also the chance of completing your goal before your turns run out, and IMO the came up with the best solution.

Entrechment works best if you leave your unit setting in one place over many turns and thats how it is in a real world setting, you just don't go to a forrest and get entrenched automatically, you have to work to build up your fortifications over days and then you become very well entrenched. Again (not to sound like a fanboy) I think they got this correct as well.

I have no issues with entrenchments taking time to build, its that they dont do much when attacked

As for the # of turns, well what about the traditional PG methods of taking cities? Youd best have artillery and stukas to soften up the defender (that you remembered to bring up in a timely manner since it took a turn to set u and fire) before even thinking of assaulting a city , and even then it could be costly.

I realize any drastic changes along my lines of thought likly would imbalance the existing campaigns so not asking for this to just be changed. Would like to see these areas open for modding though, cheers!

TheGrayMouser wrote: As for the # of turns, well what about the traditional PG methods of taking cities? Youd best have artillery and stukas to soften up the defender (that you remembered to bring up in a timely manner since it took a turn to set u and fire) before even thinking of assaulting a city , and even then it could be costly.

Heh, play on Manstein difficulty. I ALWAYS do this if I want a chance to win DV on most missions. I will use my fighters to strafe infantry in cities just to reduce entrenchment. Especially for DLC 1939 and 1940.

I don't know what level you play on but on Field Marshall if you attack a town without bombarding it well be ready to lose 4-6 guys depending on how well there entrenched. I have had to attack a town with numerous Infantry to take it on many occasions and if it has a Artillery unit supporting it, well your in for a treat.

Just out of curiosity and to chime in. For those looking to have tanks engage other tanks and access close defense values...

A lot of tanks of mid to late war are between 14 and 24 hard attack.
Ground defense ranges from 12 to 20ish.
Close defense maxes out at 5.

If a tank A has 24 hard attack, and encounters a situation where it can access the close defense value of tank B... isn't that going to be an extreme battle?
If tanks or other high attack value units gain access to the 'close defense' stat, mid and late war combat will be a battle of 1 shots. 10 strength can kill 10 strength no problem, when its 24 attack against 4 defense rating.

Kerensky wrote:Just out of curiosity and to chime in. For those looking to have tanks engage other tanks and access close defense values...

A lot of tanks of mid to late war are between 14 and 24 hard attack.
Ground defense ranges from 12 to 20ish.
Close defense maxes out at 5.

If a tank A has 24 hard attack, and encounters a situation where it can access the close defense value of tank B... isn't that going to be an extreme battle?
If tanks or other high attack value units gain access to the 'close defense' stat, mid and late war combat will be a battle of 1 shots. 10 strength can kill 10 strength no problem, when its 24 attack against 4 defense rating.

You show me a Tank force who operated soley in Mountains, Cities, Forests in WW2 (heck even today) and I'll show a force that got its behind whiped out rather quickly. Where talking basic level officer training here, you DON'T place your armor in situations where there field of fire and there armor advantage is null void because of the enviroment. Big guns mean nothing if you placed yourself in a big disadvantage, only thing that happens then is a big mistake. Having a rule that basically turns a blind eye to the enviroment is odd and not a realistic rule.

Also I see infantry all the time not die in one shot in late/mid war to tanks maybe some tweaking to the system needs to be done but ALL units should fight using the Close feature if there in a close enviroment because again unless this is some fantasy world where trees and cities disappear when your in a tank, the current system makes no sense.