Infantry Casualties at 50m

[serg3d]

Smersh said:
the problem seems to be that you can never suprise the enemy, they always no you have snuck up on them, even from behind. this is how historically you would attack an enemy at 50m and not get chewed up.

That is a technical AI problem. Taking directions into account would increase calculations complexity several times. Don't think anything could be done about it without serious rewriting AI code.

[czerpak]

I dont know if all of you noticed, but if Uncle talks about Russian 39' campaign, he must be facing polish infantry squads of 19 men each. In fact, they have double firepower of average squad.
Believe me - we did have lots of fun with those polish squads (especially myself, as I tend to play a lot with Poles) during testing. They ARE tough, so running into them at full speed could be a risky bussines.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, those huge squads do make a mess and yes, it was in that battle that I really sat up and took notice. After that I tried a few other battles in close terrain and saw similar (if perhaps less spectacular) results.

Its not even the casualties per se, its the 'throw back' that results from taking so many casualties at once. That is what doesnt seem right to me. You move up, lose a handful of men and get tossed right back without ever firing a shot.

If the casualties were lower, the resulting 'morale check' or whatever it is might be more passable resulting in a few more 'sticks' (again, which is what I recall from the DOS version).

[czerpak]

If we are talking realism (with each and every player having his own opinion about realism, I am aware of that) I like the way it is. If we are talking gameplay - well, I just ran a quick, simple test and had no problem whatsoever to pinn down enemy with area fire. Enemy was spotted, in the woods, not in LOS, range 3 hexes. Needed two squads (one halted, second on the move) to pinn enemy down.
Tried only once, didnt repeat test, but had no problems with achieving the goal WITHOUT any arty. Pure inf vs inf.
With some more luck first squad should probably do the job on its own.

[Uncle_Joe]

Try the same thing in an all urban environment (individual building..not factories with internal LOS) or when the LOS for trees is restricted to 1 hex. As I've said, the combat results seem fine outside of 1 hex (50m). So spotting at 3 hexes, pinning etc all work fine.

That does not work when dealing with 1 hex LOS in close terrain. You can provide no cover fire because you cant see the enemy. To see it, you must be adjacent. When you move adjacent, you trigger the OP fire which more than likely will cause 2-4 casualties from the Rifle, 1 more from the SAW, and 1-2 more from the grenades. Somewhere in there, you are thrown back a hex. So you've gained nothing except for 4-6 casualties. The next squad has the same option...move up, take it in the shorts and hope to 'stick'. If not, the third squad is still in no better position than the other two. Following turns are worse because your initial squads are already wrecked to no gain.

Since there is no ability to move simultaneously to overwhelm the enemy and no ability to get some 'prep fire' on him, he has defensive capabilities in excess of reality. You have to attack him piecemeal and you get chewed up piecemeal.

So because of the limitation imposed on the attacker by the one unit at a time movement system, the defender should NOT inflict those kind of casualties (and hence 'morale checks') on every unit that moves within 50m. The attacker is being unfairly penalized due to the iterative turn-based system. To compensate, the defender should lose some lethality on its 1 hex defensive fire.

[Smersh]

I have to agree here,
But what could be done within the code to alleviate the "problem" if infact no changes were made in this area since the dos version, and would this not also be a major change to how sp gameplay works?

[Uncle_Joe]

I thought it was fine in the DOS version. There were times when the casualties were high, but there were plenty when they would only kill one or two guys and the attacker stayed put allowing for some return fire.

I dont know what the change was (if any), but the impression I get is much higher lethality from rifle fire at range one. So whether its a change in the formula or the data or just imagined, I dont know but I feel like the close-in combat in the Win version is markedly inferior to the previous version.

To 'fix' it, simply restore the 50m rifle casualty rate back to what it was in the DOS version.

[DRG]

The issue is currently under discussion. WinSPww2 was build from WinSPMBT as a base then the WW2 bit added in so it's not DOS soww2 and it's not winSPMBT either. There have also been a number of small changes to the direct and indirect fire routines and even small changes in one area can affect another and it doesn't take much to change the balance of the game.

As I said. We're looking into the issue

Don

[Uncle_Joe]

OK, thanks for the update. I look forward to hearing what you decide.

[czerpak]

Uncle_Joe said:
Try the same thing in an all urban environment (individual building..not factories with internal LOS) or when the LOS for trees is restricted to 1 hex. As I've said, the combat results seem fine outside of 1 hex (50m). So spotting at 3 hexes, pinning etc all work fine.

That does not work when dealing with 1 hex LOS in close terrain. You can provide no cover fire because you cant see the enemy.

It is up to Don and Andy to decide if it needs fixing or not, not me.
But I think you did miss my point. You dont need LOS to use area fire. Thats exactly what area fire is for - provide cover when you cant see the enemy.