Updated Normandy'44_Alt (third time, 13 AUG)

[ComradeP]

Volcano Man: stacking limits will inevitably favour the defender if unit quality is similar or, worse, higher than those of the attacker. Some wargames counter this problem by allowing the attacker to attack from numerous hexes.

That's also why, from a mathematical perspective, I can understand why Allied players ran into a wall they couldn't dislodge in some Normandy '44 games, as described in this thread and elsewhere.

Similarly, I'm still very afraid of what the Germans can do if they can refit in Moscow '42, which as far as I can determine, is perfectly possible due to how slow the Soviets are, their lack of good mobile units and the bad terrain.

If the defender doesn't stand and fight, which the game usually doesn't seem to give much of an incentive for, and if he can refit, the attacker seems to get in big trouble with the PzC engine.

The attacker and defender having the same stacking limit, and the stacking limit for vehicles being simplistically modified by representing each as 10 men, causes predictable difficulties for the attacker if the defender is at a similar strength or quality level.

Balance changes like changing quality levels help somewhat, but they don't touch the core of the problem: that the attacker often can't employ a true numerical superiority after a certain time period, because the game gives the defender a chance to refit.

Refitting for both sides happens in two extremes at an ahistorical rate to cope with losses: if you stand and fight with weaker units, your units will suffer much more losses than in real life and you don't have any real chance to recover. If you disengage, your units quickly refit.

The real challenge might be to balance a longer campaign in such a way that the defender has an incentive not to withdraw and refit, whilst still making such a stand possible in terms of the attrition being sustainable for most of the scenario.