Combat modifiers

[Minodrin]

I would like to discuss the combat modifiers. Especially land-combat ones

Two things have bothered me for a while now. Now, the first is the defensive modifiers in bad weather. Could someone please explain how it is realistic that you or anyone can defend better in bad weather. Now, you might bring up examples such as the enemy having more troubles moving, locating the defender, other tactical concerns and so on. Like in winter, the defender has it easier than the attacker as the defender can more easily stay in warm, entrenched positions, while the attacker has to move, getting cold, wet, dirty...

The problem with this is that we already have negative modifiers for defence. Can anyone of you really claim that it would be easier to defend in -20c in a blizzard than in +20 on a clear day, if one was to defend against some superhuman who would attack just as well in both conditions? Ok, that got slight off track, but you guys understand what I am getting at here, right? Nevermind that I think that the winter modifiers are a bit too hurtful, it's a different argument wether it should be -20, -40 or -70%.

The second modifier I have a problem with are river-crossing penalties. They are simply too big. Yes, I know there are lots of examples or rivers stopping offensives for the moment. But there the crossing penalty stops once the enemy has taken enough beachheads and bridges, not until the entire damn province has been conquered. Right now it's -50% to -66%, right? Isn't that more than the Magnitot line gives? Especially in this mod where combat is long enough to destroy forts in battle.

What do you think of my suggestion? Lower or remove several positive defensive modifiers and lower river-crossing penalties.

 

[Lothos]

For Rivers use Engineers and leaders with Engineer trait

For Combat modifiers yes they are perfect! It is very hard for the attacker to do it in bad and cold weather. Not just moving but gas freezing. Parts in vehicles freezing together. Mud preventing normal wheeled vehicles from moving.

Modifiers stay no changes, took almost 1 1/2 years to get them right. The only modifier we are changin is movement penalties in desert mountains.

 

[Shai]

Minodrin- First, defense was always easier. The defender doesn't actually have to target an individual or unit. Area fire, sweeping across a fire zone, deadly crossfires, etc, don't actually have to aim. They just cover a zone and suppress movement therein. A properly manned position is extremely tough and, if camoflauged, nearly impossible to pinpoint.

Add bad weather like storms or snow and you get slowed movement on attack and greater vulnerability to both direct and indirect fires and even greater difficulty locating where the fire is coming from. The Russian winter was terrible for the Germans, as was the Winter War for the Russians. Your own country's history is a glowing example of the advantages gained by using terrain and weather to the defender's force multiplication.

When the temp drops enough, even the oil used to lubricate weapons freezes. Forget tanks running or planes launching. Even touching a gun barrel could incapacitate a soldier. The defender at least has the opportunity to keep his weapons and machines covered while the attacker necessarily must expose his own to the weather before contact is even made.

Opposed river crossings were serious problems, even with engineers. When you read of a quick river crossing it's always either unopposed, through subterfuge, or overwhelming through the use of artillery, direct fire, and bombing. Even light resistance stymied a river crossing. That's why rivers are, historically, eagerly sought as holding positions.

One could make the case that -50% is not enough. A division simply cannot deploy its full strength at river's edge in order to force a crossing. How far across is that river? 500 Yards? A quarter mile? Bridging under fire is a deadly business, as is crossing under fire. To force a crossing is a battle of either attriting the enemy at range or through bombing, or accepting heavy losses in an exposed crossing.

 

[Minodrin]

Minodrin- First, defense was always easier. The defender doesn't actually have to target an individual or unit. Area fire, sweeping across a fire zone, deadly crossfires, etc, don't actually have to aim. They just cover a zone and suppress movement therein. A properly manned position is extremely tough and, if camoflauged, nearly impossible to pinpoint.

Add bad weather like storms or snow and you get slowed movement on attack and greater vulnerability to both direct and indirect fires and even greater difficulty locating where the fire is coming from. The Russian winter was terrible for the Germans, as was the Winter War for the Russians. Your own country's history is a glowing example of the advantages gained by using terrain and weather to the defender's force multiplication.

When the temp drops enough, even the oil used to lubricate weapons freezes. Forget tanks running or planes launching. Even touching a gun barrel could incapacitate a soldier. The defender at least has the opportunity to keep his weapons and machines covered while the attacker necessarily must expose his own to the weather before contact is even made.

Opposed river crossings were serious problems, even with engineers. When you read of a quick river crossing it's always either unopposed, through subterfuge, or overwhelming through the use of artillery, direct fire, and bombing. Even light resistance stymied a river crossing. That's why rivers are, historically, eagerly sought as holding positions.

One could make the case that -50% is not enough. A division simply cannot deploy its full strength at river's edge in order to force a crossing. How far across is that river? 500 Yards? A quarter mile? Bridging under fire is a deadly business, as is crossing under fire. To force a crossing is a battle of either attriting the enemy at range or through bombing, or accepting heavy losses in an exposed crossing.

Ah, quite. So you do hold that it's easier to aim and hit with artillery in a blizzard than in clear summer weather. Ah more stationary target, perhaps.

So, the Germans fared badly in the winter in Russia, and Russia fared poorly in the winter in Finland? Tell me though, how did the Russians manage those winter offensives though? And even if the German army didn't exactly shine in the Ardennes offensive (it counts as winter, yes?), I don't think that the Americans actually defended better than they might have in summer.

And you mentioned supply problems in winter for the defender contra the attacker. Yes, you are very, very right. The defender had problems keeping his weapons in order (had to keep them warm, clean much more), while the attacker had huge problems. We are talking about giving one a bonus, not just having the same combat efficency, but a bonus in winter and bad weather.

And you read about the rivers but you did not listen, or you did not answer my comment. Yes, rivers are indeed important obstacles. You mention how far across the river is. What about how far you have to get across? Is the river an obstacle no-more when you hold 1 bridge and 10 metres of land beyond it? What about 3 bridges and 300 metres? 1km? 10? These provinces are generally c. 100km across. And the attacker is faced with the river-crossing penalty for the entirity of those 100km, until the province is completely conquered. And that's why I have a problem with the large river crossing penalty. Not because it's too big, but because it doesn't end when the troops would in reality be across the river.

And it's impossible to just use divisions with engineers or a leader with said trait. If you get the enemy on the move, you need to strike with what you have, you can't wait a week for an army of engineers to arrive. And if you are not on the move, you need to attack on all spots, not just with one corps on one river section (can't build engineers for all the divisions either...). And having a few divisions with engineers don't help much, do they? Or do they give river-crossing bonuses to the whole army?

 

[Lothos]

THe soviet winter offensives came at a very high cost. THe truth is the soviets lost almost 2 to 1 in troops agaisnt the Germans launching those offensives.

As for the rest of your comments nothing can be done its in the EXE game engine so it can't be changed. We have to work with what we got.

 

[Minodrin]

If you say so. But I still don't have to agree to the fact that military hinders in one side of a province are calculated as hindering the battle in the entire province. Meh.

 

[Shai]

Hi, Minodrin. I want to thank you again for the help and advice you've given me here.

As for the points you bring up-

Re: artillery- If used for direct fire, say '88s against armor, yes, it would be more difficult for aimed fire if you were in a blizzard. Virtually useless, in fact. But, area fire would be indifferent to the weather when using airbursts. The targeted area is already zeroed and simply waits for some inviting victims to enter. Groundbursts, otoh, were ineffective because the rounds usually were too deep in snow/mud before they detonated to have much impact.

Likewise, machine guns would cover a designated area and not actually require targeting but would lay down fire that would kill whatever blundered in the way. That's also typical for night defense when targeting is problematical.

Regarding various performances in winter, there were significant differences in preparation between the Russian-Finn Winter war and later Russian offensives. It was the former which prompted a great many improvements to the Russians preparations.

The '41 Winter was a disaster for the unprepared German army. That's on record. They got better after that bitter lesson.

The Ardennes successes were against green troops in a sparsely held area utilizing both tactical and strategic surprise and overwhelming force concentration. The failure of the offensive occurred before the weather broke when surprise was no longer a factor and a few seasoned units were interposed. Weather was a significant factor but their were other factors like supply, fuel, and movement ( or the lack thereof) which contributed to the failure of the Offensive.

About river crossings- I make the assumption that zero bridges are held. Once a bridgehead was created it is would no longer be a river crossing battle, would it? So, I guess we had different things in mind when we made our points.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

I think you misunderstand Minodrin.
What he appears to be complaining about is not the attackers getting a penalty; rather, he complains about the defenders getting a bonus in addition to the penalty for the attackers - which would essentially translate as the defending forces killing more enemies per salvo fired because they cannot see what they are shooting at, instead of accidentally shooting their allies or firing against areas devoid of troops because they think they might have seen something there.
The total effect is, of course, the same as replacing the defence bonus with a more severe attack penalty for all non-cosmetic purposes.

Unfortunately, as Lothos has already pointed out, nothing can be done about such things as mud not slowing down tanks while it is raining or rivers 50 km behind the front having a direct effect on combat.