Early war engineers

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

To come back to the game. I still think that engineers armed with flamethrowers and satchel charges should be able to harm/disrupt a pillbox regardsless which nation they are. What the best method of achieving this is, I'll leave to the technical guys such as Jason, Umbro & Wyatt.

I've been following this with a lot of interest as I always thought that some hard attack abilities should be given to all engineers not just the select few we see now. I would like to point out though that under existing rules engineers "armed with flamethrowers and satchel charges are able to harm/disrupt a pillbox regardsless which nation they are."

Point of example; to get a good look at the pillbox situations being discussed, I played the scenario "Big Bully" last night vs. the AI. I found that by forming company strength assault groups of Engineers the Itallians were able to bust three pillboxes all occupied initially by undisrupted Albanian units. The procedure used was; turn one an initial assault of the undirupted pillbox by four engineer platoons (usually resulted in a d1 effect) and a followup assault by a company of infantry. Turn two repeated the process and usually the infantry company carried the position after the second engineer assault. If not the same process was repeated on a third turn which always carried the position. Two to three turns of continuous assault is not quite as efficient as the Germans but I think we can all agree that the Italians were not quite as efficient as the Germans in most aspects of the war. This series of tests was conducted under 1.04 with extreme assault rules active. Kind of surprising. Of course one also has to remember that the terrain surrounding the assaulted pillboxes was beneficial to the attacker (high defense modifiers kept the attackers undisrupted and adjacent to the defender over multiple turns.) Were these pillboxes in open ground and if the defender had good artillery support available to break up the assaults before they went in it may be a different story. Just wanted to point out though that under these conditions in this scenario the engineers were able to achieve results.

Does this mean we should go mucking about with the hard attack values? Don't know, that's for others to decide but higher hard attack values wouldn't have made any difference in this since none of pillboxes taken were ever fired upon, just assaulted.

Just my .02

[Huib Versloot]

To come back to the game. I still think that engineers armed with flamethrowers and satchel charges should be able to harm/disrupt a pillbox regardsless which nation they are. What the best method of achieving this is, I'll leave to the technical guys such as Jason, Umbro & Wyatt.

I've been following this with a lot of interest as I always thought that some hard attack abilities should be given to all engineers not just the select few we see now. I would like to point out though that under existing rules engineers "armed with flamethrowers and satchel charges are able to harm/disrupt a pillbox regardsless which nation they are."

Point of example; to get a good look at the pillbox situations being discussed, I played the scenario "Big Bully" last night vs. the AI. I found that by forming company strength assault groups of Engineers the Itallians were able to bust three pillboxes all occupied initially by undisrupted Albanian units. The procedure used was; turn one an initial assault of the undirupted pillbox by four engineer platoons (usually resulted in a d1 effect) and a followup assault by a company of infantry. Turn two repeated the process and usually the infantry company carried the position after the second engineer assault. If not the same process was repeated on a third turn which always carried the position. Two to three turns of continuous assault is not quite as efficient as the Germans but I think we can all agree that the Italians were not quite as efficient as the Germans in most aspects of the war. This series of tests was conducted under 1.04 with extreme assault rules active. Kind of surprising. Of course one also has to remember that the terrain surrounding the assaulted pillboxes was beneficial to the attacker (high defense modifiers kept the attackers undisrupted and adjacent to the defender over multiple turns.) Were these pillboxes in open ground and if the defender had good artillery support available to break up the assaults before they went in it may be a different story. Just wanted to point out though that under these conditions in this scenario the engineers were able to achieve results.

Does this mean we should go mucking about with the hard attack values? Don't know, that's for others to decide but higher hard attack values wouldn't have made any difference in this since none of pillboxes taken were ever fired upon, just assaulted.

Just my .02

That's cool. I tried it too and it worked. Never too old to learn...

[K K Rossokolski]

Yes they did, but this would not change the pillbox into a pile of rubble, it mostly killed or dazed the crew. The pillboxes were most blown to pieces with lots of TNT later when the frontline had already moved up or after the war. The english word in the story I provided was "embrasure" I do not know what that means and was too lazy to look it up. Could be a slit or entrance?

To come back to the game. I still think that engineers armed with flamethrowers and satchel charges should be able to harm/disrupt a pillbox regardsless which nation they are. What the best method of achieving this is, I'll leave to the technical guys such as Jason, Umbro & Wyatt.

Sorry Alf...I had you marching your engineers around the back to blow up the steel entrance door...those that lived, at least.
"Embrasure" is exactly the word.
I go back to my early point that the pillbox/bunker iin CS is unrealistic because of 360 degree visibility therefrom....not the case in real life
Therefore, we could surely cut the engineers some slack in increased power to take out these things

[1925frank]

The engineers, regardless of country, seem to always have better assault values than regular infantry. That's probably attributable to flamethrowers or whatever.

According to Talonsoft, the improved assault value apparently is not attributable to panzerfausts or bazookas, which I believe increase the hard attack values of infantry but have no effect on their assault values.

I'm thinking Talonsoft attributed hard attack value on training. Apparently Talonsoft thought that German engineers were 9 times better at hard attacks than most countries and 1/3 better than the US and British engineers. Even when attributing that to training, I'm having trouble figuring out why.

The idea of assaulting units in a pillbox without disrupting them first seems like suicide, but apparently it works if you have sufficient numbers. That's thinking outside of the box.

If I remember correctly, the Italian attack on Albania went more like the German occupation of Austria, although I think there was some fighting. It's been a while since I read "Mussolini's Roman Empire."

[K K Rossokolski]

If I remember correctly, the Italian attack on Albania went more like the German occupation of Austria, although I think there was some fighting. It's been a while since I read "Mussolini's Roman Empire."

Not quite...the Albanians resisted strongly in Durres (Durazzo). Later, a very effective Partisan movement developed.

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

KKR,

Great scenario BTW. I've had a lot of fun with it!

[1925frank]

That's what I like about CS and the forum -- you get to learn things. I'm glad someone's put together a scenario on the Albanian-Italian conflict.

When I played Hearts of Iron as the Italians, I took Albania and the rest of the Balkans in one game. Hearts of Iron has a partisans aspect to it, and I remember the Albanian partisans were noticeably stronger than in other areas and, rather than dimish with time, seemed to get stronger.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

It's quite possible that some players have misunderstood the addition of fausts, schrecks, and bazookas.

From the manual:
Most infantry units can only fire at hard targets at a range of one hex. At the same range the units can assault. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

A. You have to examine the characteristics of your infantry units to see which is better – the Assault Value or the 1-hex Direct Fire hard Attack Factor. Each can vary markedly from one type to another and also vary due to date (generally, the 1-hex hard Attack Factor increases as the war goes on). You will find that Engineer infantry always have a good antitank capability regardless of date, reflecting satchel charges and similar weapons that they carried. Other units, such as a submachine gun platoon, also have adequate anti-armor capabilities – as well as a high Assault Value. Some units, such as Soviet antitank rifle sections, have no Assault Value and thus can only conduct Direct Fire. Later in the war, units such as Panzer Grenadiers become quite powerful in their assault and antitank capabilities, reflecting new weapons such as Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks (the German counterpart to the Bazooka) and increased firepower from new machineguns and sub-machineguns. Whether you should assault or Direct Fire can also depend on the tactical situation. Assault may cause more damage, particularly if units assault from different directions. But there is even a possibility that the assaulters can become Disrupted or incur casualties – even on an otherwise successful assault! Also, a successful assault will end up with the assaulting unit(s) occupying the assaulted hex; if they had been in good terrain (e.g., factory, trenches, and bunker) before, this could increase their risk. Direct Fire carries less risk.
_______________________________________________

My only issue with the above is that the reference is to German Engineers. 1925Frank mentioned that the German Engineers are nine times as effective versus hard targets. I'm not sure that that was the intent of the Talonsoft CS developers. Why, if they have satchel charges and flamethrowers, should any other army's Engineers be less powerful than the German Engineers versus hard targets? Other than tactical training, of course?
But, does that mean nine times the effectiveness?
Most other nation's Engineers are no better than regular infantry when attacking a hard target. I think that needs to be addressed in a future update.

Plus, Pillboxes and bunkers in a hex are not representing a single pillbox or bunker. They reflect a "position" which has pillboxes and bunkers in the hex.

RR

[1925frank]

I think my math was off in an earlier post.

If German engineers have a hard attack of 18, and if US and British engineers have a hard attack of 12, then the German engineers are 50 percent stonger (not one-third) than the US and British enigneers.

If other countries have engineers with 2 hard attack, then US and British engineers are six times better than other countries, and the German engineers are nine times betters than other countries.

The Germans had stormtroopers in WWI, and I'm wondering if the hard attack has something to do with that. It's apparently some skill or aspect in which the Germans excelled that only the British and Americans attempted to mimick with some success but not equal success.

The soft attacks of infantry are usually 6 or 8 at one hex with the exception of the Germans, which I believe is 12. That's quite a disparity too, but I can see where weaponry could produce those discrepancies. Are there US or British infantry units with 12 soft attacks at one hex by the end of the war? Did the Germans have a superior number of light machineguns?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

If other countries have engineers with 2 hard attack, then US and British engineers are six times better than other countries, and the German engineers are nine times betters than other countries.

Yes, this is what I see.

The Germans had stormtroopers in WWI, and I'm wondering if the hard attack has something to do with that. It's apparently some skill or aspect in which the Germans excelled that only the British and Americans attempted to mimick with some success but not equal success.

You are on to something. Inter-war doctrines had the Germans building on it's storm troop concept. And, they thought they would be fighting against tanks with their infantry, so they developed those skills and tactics at a higher level then most.
But, engineers are not stormtroops. They are engineers.

The soft attacks of infantry are usually 6 or 8 at one hex with the exception of the Germans, which I believe is 12. That's quite a disparity too, but I can see where weaponry could produce those discrepancies. Are there US or British infantry units with 12 soft attacks at one hex by the end of the war? Did the Germans have a superior number of light machineguns?

The standard German infantry unit was based around the support of the machine gun. The Americans and Brits used machine guns to support their rifles.
I think it is more a matter of tactics and use, not so much a bias on the part of the early developers.

RR