MASS ATTACK Formula
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
MASS ATTACK Formula
Any way to rework the Mass attack formula to have more effect on tanks (HA values)?
I know it is a simple formula now.
From Soldier:
I'm not sure i agree with limiting Tiger II availability or incrementally increasing their costs per unit purchased, hopefully theres a better solution. I agree that the main issue is that there's almost no reason to buy two Pz IVG's over one tiger II, as a single IS-2 will devastate a whole force of them in one turn if attacked.
It seems that mass attack, the feature designed to affect this problem has far more impact on troops (who actually should be able to spread out their line easier) than it does against the heavy tanks who would have more difficulty deploying to meet attacks from the sides.
However, buffing the usefulness and combat abilities of the more 'common' units such as PZ IVs, Shermans, and T34s to be more effective and abundant? Count on it.
This is good news. The T-34 series especially needs work, its so vunerable to losses in combat.
I know it is a simple formula now.
From Soldier:
I'm not sure i agree with limiting Tiger II availability or incrementally increasing their costs per unit purchased, hopefully theres a better solution. I agree that the main issue is that there's almost no reason to buy two Pz IVG's over one tiger II, as a single IS-2 will devastate a whole force of them in one turn if attacked.
It seems that mass attack, the feature designed to affect this problem has far more impact on troops (who actually should be able to spread out their line easier) than it does against the heavy tanks who would have more difficulty deploying to meet attacks from the sides.
However, buffing the usefulness and combat abilities of the more 'common' units such as PZ IVs, Shermans, and T34s to be more effective and abundant? Count on it.
This is good news. The T-34 series especially needs work, its so vunerable to losses in combat.
-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
As I understand it, the gamerules.pzdat file sets a default penalty of 1 to initiative per extra attacker (with attack remaining) beyond the first. So 3 attackers = -2 to the initiative of the defender. However, infantry have initiatives of 2-4, on average, so mass attack will affect them a lot more than a tank (Pz IVH has 9; Panther G, 12 and KT, 14). So, I don't know how mass attack can be improved with a variation for INF and TNK *unless* it is changed to a percentage deduction, rather than an absolute figure.
Add an if statement. If target unit class = 1 use penalty of 2
Test that. May have to be a penalty of 4 or 5.
Don't worry about AT's, especially the mobile AT units. It will make them more valuable, hence an incentive to buy one.
Edit: If attacker class = 0 and target class = penalty = 2
We don't want tank against tanks to get an additional bonus.
Test that. May have to be a penalty of 4 or 5.
Don't worry about AT's, especially the mobile AT units. It will make them more valuable, hence an incentive to buy one.
Edit: If attacker class = 0 and target class = penalty = 2
We don't want tank against tanks to get an additional bonus.
I did not do a lot of tests on this, but I suspect that initiative advantage will not be enough to fix PzIV vs. IS-2 situation. IS-2 has a very high defense rating which is hard for PzIV to penetrate, even if it shoots first. This is the reason why light tanks are not very successful against heavy ones even in bad weather or in a city/forest, where initiative is capped and bigger gun loses its advantage.
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:58 pm
Massed Attacks/Assaults
When performing a massed attack, why not combine all (elgible) attackers values? Defender's kills would be allocated to the most vulnerable attacker initiatives. At Kurst, T-34s were able to overcome PzVs and Vis by rushing in (assaulting) en mass at point blank/flanking ranges.
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:13 am
- Location: Indonesia
- Contact:
IMHO this is the problem with different level of perspective.
Actually in operational level Light brigades are more feasible than PzIII unit. Medium armor brigades are more feasible than PzIV unit, as we won't intent to see single type of unit forming the entire division / brigade level didn't we ?
As of flanking, this isn't the case for operational level, since it's hard to simulate. Flanking manuver should be on tactical level.
Massed attack formula can be the solution for simulating flanks because it has more sense, why not calculating the behaviour of defensive unit based on their leader attachment ? otherwise they have full attack value based on default behaviour ( e.g : default always have full retaliation on heavy armor, light armor, medium retaliation to soft target, but the presence of leader attachment can alter this )
This just my thought..
Actually in operational level Light brigades are more feasible than PzIII unit. Medium armor brigades are more feasible than PzIV unit, as we won't intent to see single type of unit forming the entire division / brigade level didn't we ?
As of flanking, this isn't the case for operational level, since it's hard to simulate. Flanking manuver should be on tactical level.
Massed attack formula can be the solution for simulating flanks because it has more sense, why not calculating the behaviour of defensive unit based on their leader attachment ? otherwise they have full attack value based on default behaviour ( e.g : default always have full retaliation on heavy armor, light armor, medium retaliation to soft target, but the presence of leader attachment can alter this )
This just my thought..
-
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
Just putting the idea out there - I know it would make massed attacks fairly powerful, but one of the frustrations I have with it is when I get all my mass attack units in place and the first or second attack causes the target to retreat so that it can't be attacked by the others, who waste their turn. What about preventing units that are massed attacked from retreating? This would be fairly powerful, so remove the initiative bonus to compensate?
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2312
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:56 pm
- Location: Northeast, USA
I share that frustrations with you.El_Condoro wrote:Just putting the idea out there - I know it would make massed attacks fairly powerful, but one of the frustrations I have with it is when I get all my mass attack units in place and the first or second attack causes the target to retreat so that it can't be attacked by the others, who waste their turn. What about preventing units that are massed attacked from retreating? This would be fairly powerful, so remove the initiative bonus to compensate?
Or – (and not to open up a subject that has already been beaten to death)
This would be a prime example of when allowing a one hex move for the units that were involved with the mass attack and ended up not attacking.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
Another option for Mass attacks woudl be to reduce the number of defending rolls. For each adjacent unit lose 1 SP off the defending unit. E.g. a JS-II with 3 Pz IV adjacent would only be able to shoot with 8 strength at each. This in addition to the initiative penalty would help tip it further in favour of the mass attack without imbalancing too much. Maybe we also sayi for each ground attack you have sustained you roll 1 less attack.
Currently in the above example the first pzIV gets help from 2 units. The 2nd one only gets help from 1, as the other has attacked and teh last gets no help at all. In reality they are working together and everyone attacking the hex should benefit from the other units supporting them. Kind of like a permanent suppression until the end of the turn (which does not recover after a ground attack).
The other option is to try and modify the HA/SA or HD/SD values and thats much more open to abuse.
Currently in the above example the first pzIV gets help from 2 units. The 2nd one only gets help from 1, as the other has attacked and teh last gets no help at all. In reality they are working together and everyone attacking the hex should benefit from the other units supporting them. Kind of like a permanent suppression until the end of the turn (which does not recover after a ground attack).
The other option is to try and modify the HA/SA or HD/SD values and thats much more open to abuse.
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2312
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:56 pm
- Location: Northeast, USA
That makes a lot of sense iainmcneil.
The premise behind why mass attack should have a benefit is because the defender has to spread out its line a bit thinner and thus open to a more forceful attack. With that said, the defender should not be allowed to use all of its strength in defense (because of the spread out line).
The premise behind why mass attack should have a benefit is because the defender has to spread out its line a bit thinner and thus open to a more forceful attack. With that said, the defender should not be allowed to use all of its strength in defense (because of the spread out line).
What you describe is pretty much how mass attack works, however you are thinking of a more direct affect than the current indirect one (reducing enemy initiative allows for fewer enemy units to act because of how suppression functions).iainmcneil wrote:Another option for Mass attacks woudl be to reduce the number of defending rolls. For each adjacent unit lose 1 SP off the defending unit. E.g. a JS-II with 3 Pz IV adjacent would only be able to shoot with 8 strength at each. This in addition to the initiative penalty would help tip it further in favour of the mass attack without imbalancing too much. Maybe we also sayi for each ground attack you have sustained you roll 1 less attack.
Currently in the above example the first pzIV gets help from 2 units. The 2nd one only gets help from 1, as the other has attacked and teh last gets no help at all. In reality they are working together and everyone attacking the hex should benefit from the other units supporting them. Kind of like a permanent suppression until the end of the turn (which does not recover after a ground attack).
With the current mechanisms and unit balance, there's no condition a T34/85 can challenge a King Tiger. Even an ammo-less King Tiger would be incredibly hard for a T34/85 to kill.
However there is a round of serious balance changes going on (lol email ) so I'm waiting to see the outcome of those changes before we fiddle with mass attack.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing tank combat double the effect of mass attack (-2 initiative per mass attacker when target class = tank or anti-tank) Because tanks have so much initiative, (15+) while infantry and other units are relatively low, even in the 1943 variants (~3)
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:58 pm
Re: MASS ATTACK Formula
This whole problem of simulating massed attacks (as well as all other actions) can be easily solved by giving all units a fixed number of "action points"
at the beginning of each turn. Since each unit moves/attacks separately, they will expend their points attacking/moving- up to their limit. This way,
a "massed" attack occurs as a "cumulation" of a series of individual attacks while allowing each unit to perform all of it's actions.
at the beginning of each turn. Since each unit moves/attacks separately, they will expend their points attacking/moving- up to their limit. This way,
a "massed" attack occurs as a "cumulation" of a series of individual attacks while allowing each unit to perform all of it's actions.