Dealing with the "AI attacks all your units preventing you from moving any"

[magogian]

With my invasion of the Soviet Union (as Germany) one very annoying tendency I've noticed is that the SU will frequently engage in numerous attacks along our lines but with forces that are far too weak to win. While the attacks are almost never successful, they take forever to resolve and the in mean time I can't move any of my forces because they are engaged in the defense. Is there a way around this?

 

[jelay14]

Quite frankly, that sounds like a winning strategy to me.

 

[magogian]

Quite frankly, that sounds like a winning strategy to me.

It may be a winning strategy under the game mechanics, but, if so, it is a dumb game mechanic.

 

[kezardinjnr]

It may be a winning strategy under the game mechanics, but, if so, it is a dumb game mechanic.

Why is it dumb ? Blitzkrieg depended on mobility and the AI is doing something to deny you that mobility.

You're essentially complaining because the AI is giving you a hard time ? :wacko:

I suspect most players want a challenge, rather than a walkover.

If your tactics aren't working then maybe try to change them -don't put all your units in the front line, for example. Keep some in reserve and maintain flexibility. String attacks together to attack a number of provinces sequentially. Or switch the tasking of your airforce.

 

[Union Jack]

It's not just game mechanics. There have been many accounts of soldiers in war fighting holding actions, knowing they don't have the resources to win but pinning the enemy in place, buying time for a retreat or for other forces to be repositioned to launch a counter attack.

As for a strategy in game, have you tried gathering a reserve force of fast units behind your front lines? When the enemy attacks, you can provide rapid reinforcement, overwelm the Soviets by gaining local superiority and perhaps make a break through allowing you to encircle and destroy them? I have no idea if that works as I'm new to the game, but it's just what springs to mind.

 

[unmerged(304296)]

I hold my attack forces one space back from the front until I am ready then set them to move through the front line targeting a province behind the enemy front.

 

[Cybvep]

That's how it works ingame. The system favours the attacker, who can control the number of engaged divs, while the defender cannot do that without retreating. This could be solved by "combat stances", but there is nothing like that ATM. You can try to widen the frontline or bomb the enemy divs to oblivion. Alternatively, you can attack the units stationed in the province of the AI attacker, which will often force the AI to stop attacking you.

Also, pinning is all well and good, but it's also a costly strategy. MP losses are usually very high.

 

[Leadfingers]

First, let's note the discrepancy between the concepts of "forces that are far too weak to win" and "attacks are almost never successful"...

Anyway

What you're describing is called a "soak off" attack, and it's been in use in real life and in strategy games since like...forEVER.

In fact, in the old Wacht Am Rhein board game, there was a rule that if you were in a unit's Zone of Control, then you had to engage it. Artillery soak off attacks allowed stacks of units to concentrate fire on a single hex while the artillery "pinned down" the other hexes.

Anyway, it's a perfectly legitimate mechanic.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

If you think this mechanic is gamey, you can use another gamey mechanic to counter that:
Always select a second province behind the first one as target for your moving army. If the attack cooldown has worn off before they enter the first one, they wil immediately attack the second one. Since the AI takes an hour or two two react, you can fight two battles at once with this technique.

Another option is to attack the counter-attackers from another province, since this will usually make the AI break off it's own attack. The AI will rarely make another attempt after the first one, and even if it would: the SU usually has a higher attack cooldown than GER.

 

[unmerged(264432)]

Load up a 1941 Scenario on hard and play as Russia.

Tell us that using a delaying attack is gamey afterwards.

 

[TKFS]

Sorry to say, but the AI is actually employing a real-world tactic right now. Who woulda thought?

 

[bdodig]

It's a good and legitimate tactic: and it's not too hard to counter, provided his forces are in a line. Just attack on a wider front then where you intend your main "push" to be, so your main force has its flanks protected and your breakthrough can proceed unimpeded unless they have depth... which can also be solved with enough troops.

Anyway, it's not "gamey" in any way, you are not protecting the flanks of your breakthrough. The AI is just correctly reacting to your tactics.

 

[apocriphaA]

In fact this was a successful tactic used by the Prussian (1st?) army to pin the French army in Metz, while the second Prussia army went around and finished the encirclement.
Keeping the enemy pinned so you can deny them strategic mobility/outflank them is a really common tactic, used across a whole lot of games (warhammer to name but another one).

Otherwise a good way for you to deal with this problem is to load up your game as the SU and to just systematically disband their units...

 

[unmerged(264432)]

In fact this was a successful tactic used by the Prussian (1st?) army to pin the French army in Metz, while the second Prussia army went around and finished the encirclement.
Keeping the enemy pinned so you can deny them strategic mobility/outflank them is a really common tactic, used across a whole lot of games (warhammer to name but another one).

Otherwise a good way for you to deal with this problem is to load up your game as the SU and to just systematically disband their units...

Actually, this was Prussian military doctrine since the times of Fredrick.

 

[Panncakemouse]

Is there a way around this?

Play an early version with really, really bad AI. ;-)

As others have said the trick is to attack first so you hare pinning down the enemy and then you decide where to punch through with the main assault.
Read about Israeli tactic in hte six day war for some inspiration - in the '60s they were able to go further and faster (with quite a lot of WWII hardware) than US did in Iraq.

 

[jju_57]

in the '60s they were able to go further and faster (with quite a lot of WWII hardware) than US did in Iraq.

Not to go way off topic here but how could they have gone further, HUH? Just look at the size of the maps. No way they could go further. From Kuwait to Baghdad its about 300 miles. That would mean the Israelies would be past either Cairo or Damascus which didn't happen.

 

[apocriphaA]

Actually, this was Prussian military doctrine since the times of Fredrick.

Quite so, but I wanted one specific concrete example.

 

[Marcus]

I don't recall which documentary it was, but I recall seeing one where they had a German soldier (interviewed about the opening stages of Barbarossa) who said: 'Pretty soon we knew that this fight (against the Soviets) was going to be a hard one, because they figured out quite fast that if you leave the spearhead alone and attack its following flanks, all our tactics went to shit'.

 

[Panncakemouse]

Not to go way off topic here but how could they have gone further, HUH? Just look at the size of the maps. No way they could go further. From Kuwait to Baghdad its about 300 miles. That would mean the Israelies would be past either Cairo or Damascus which didn't happen.

Well, yes. It is a further distance from Kuwait to Baghdad, but it also took the US led coalition three weeks to get there.

Israel took the entire Sinai peninsula in four+ days during the "Six day war" and the longest distance there is not towards Cairo. I actually think IDF was even faster in the 1956 Sinai Campaign when it only took 100 hours to do the same.

That is IDF had finished off Sinai (and Egypt) in the same amount of time as it took for US troops to get past Nasiriyah in the 2003 campaign.
IDF could have moved on into Egypt if they wanted, there was nothing left of the Egyptian Army, but decided to stop at Suez (actually a bit before). If nothing else world opinon would have been harsh if Suez had been crossed.

Anywya - the point was that IDF campaign in Sinai 1967 is an excellent tactical example.