German use of corps in 1942

[timmyab]

I think the fundamental problem here that isn't addressed by the system is that doing away with the Soviet corps in 41 should overload the Soviet army level leaders/HQs.
If you imagine every Soviet division as an HQ, which effectively they are, then it becomes obvious (to me at least) what the solution should be.That is, limit the number of HQs (or units) that a leader/HQ combination can command effectively.
So for instance, an average German corps leader/HQ would be able to command 4 divisional level HQs no problem.So would a Soviet leader/HQ, but when the Soviet corps level disappears in early 41 the army level leaders/HQs are going to have ten or twelve HQs (i.e divisions) to command and are going to become overloaded.To disband the German corps HQs in this case would be suicide.
The Soviet army level leader/HQ command rating could gradually increase through to late 42, but the real easing of the problem would only come with the mass formation of corps in 43, which is historically correct.
It just needs sorting out what penalties would result from the 41/42 overloading.I would think a steady lowering of leader ratings as the load increases would be one way to simulate the consequences of overloading.

This system would work for higher level HQs as well.
For instance it would stop massed Stavka armies from being so effective.You could still have them but too many HQs directly under Stavka command would start to adversely effect the supreme command's ability to function properly, as indeed they should.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Russians simply had more and Germans less with each passing year. Nothing changed as far as tactics went. Its the same stuff when you read book after book or the accounts given by soldiers on both side.

You need to start reading more books...

[carlkay58]

The real problem is very simple. For some reason, if you assign a unit to an Army HQ, the base chance for the Army HQ change - which also changes the modifiers for HQs above it. If the Army HQ modifier remained a constant (always using a d20 for the ability checks) then you would make the rules/code easier AND illustrate the advantages of having a German Corps level.

The game also has Soviet Airborne Corps HQs that last the entire game. Not only does this allow a drop of brigade strength units, but also illustrates why they are elite because there is another ability check.

If the modifiers stay the same then having an additional Corps level check is obviously better than not having the additional check. Problem solved for justification of the Corps level of command.

If the SHC level is ALWAYS a d80 check, then Zhukov's effect on a single combat is very slight and more of a miracle than anything else.

[Michael T]

carlkay this is the best idea yet.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

carlkay this is the best idea yet.

If I keep bitching an moaning long enough bugs are found = national morale being bugged from release to date and someone finally found the bug smarter then me. Finally GHC NM will not be 60 from 41 to 45


If I keep bitching an moaning long enough someone smarter then me will come up with a great idea.

Great idea now we have to make some noise to get it put into game.

There is some sht wrong with the current GHC armament / manpower from 43+ The next thing on the list to get fixed/debugged.

[rmonical]

The real problem is very simple. For some reason, if you assign a unit to an Army HQ, the base chance for the Army HQ change - which also changes the modifiers for HQs above it. If the Army HQ modifier remained a constant (always using a d20 for the ability checks) then you would make the rules/code easier AND illustrate the advantages of having a German Corps level.

The game also has Soviet Airborne Corps HQs that last the entire game. Not only does this allow a drop of brigade strength units, but also illustrates why they are elite because there is another ability check.

If the modifiers stay the same then having an additional Corps level check is obviously better than not having the additional check. Problem solved for justification of the Corps level of command.

If the SHC level is ALWAYS a d80 check, then Zhukov's effect on a single combat is very slight and more of a miracle than anything else.

Probably the right idea. HUGE impact on the Soviets in 41.

[Michael T]

I think the basis of the idea is very sound. You could tinker with Soviet Army D-base for 41/42/43 to make it work. It would solve so many issues with one stone.

[Numdydar]

What would need to change in the DB for this to be done? If this is something modable, then i would love to know how [:)]

[rmonical]

What would need to change in the DB for this to be done? If this is something modable, then i would love to know how

Sorry, WiTE is not user tailorable as is TOF.

[Numdydar]

Well I sure hope someone is listening then [:)]

[Michael T]

Buy D base I mean die base (10) for Soviet Army rolls. Eg 41 might be D15 rather than D10.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Buy D base I mean die base (10) for Soviet Army rolls. Eg 41 might be D15 rather than D10.

The current set-up if you look at die rolls says SHC amrie leaders are as good as GHC because they do not need Corp.

All armies D rolls should be

Corp 10
Armie 30
Front/MD/AG 60
OKH/Stavka 100

The current system does not punish SHC for only having 3 lvls of management and punishes GHC for having 4.

[turtlefang]

A very simple idea (simple ideas that work are always the best ideas).

This would address a lot of issues and make a number of logical changes although not sure how it would ultimately impact play balance.

1) Reality is that STAVKA and OKH shouldn't impact local battles that much. As one person put it, when it happens, it should be a miracle. And Z might not be the best choice for STAVKA any more - Sharop?? can't spell his name, might be due to his admin rating.

2) It works within the current system and is consistent.

3) It actually encourages "front" overloading of armies

On the German side, it would penalize disbanding corps. You would end up with a lot fewer reserve activations and SU commitments.

This, BTW, might also reduce the Soviet reserve activations and SU commitments Michael T was worried about earlier on the Soviet side. As the fronts get overloaded, the initiative rating will decline. And if you just move them back to being attached directly to a front, the likelihood of an activation goes down.

[morvael]

Why not just change the rule 11.3.2:
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units to which the unit involved is not directly attached, i.e. HQ units higher up the chain of command."
to
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units that are not Corps (Type 4) level."

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Why not just change the rule 11.3.2:
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units to which the unit involved is not directly attached, i.e. HQ units higher up the chain of command."
to
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units that are not Corps (Type 4) level."

Because we all both sides simply move OKH and Stavka to the front and attach units under them. We are alrdy getting around this rule as turtlefang has stated.

Both sides are simply by passing the rules and it is working consitantly for both sides.

The fix needs to be historical.

Currently the SHC command structure is far far game changing better then GHC over 200+ turns. This is not historical in any way shape or form.

The fix needs to make GHC C&C better then SHC C&C not keep it worse or even.

In other word done right the first time and not tweaked over 6 months.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Currently the SHC command structure is far far game changing better then GHC over 200+ turns. This is not historical in any way shape or form.

The fix needs to make GHC C&C better then SHC C&C not keep it worse or even.

In other word done right the first time and not tweaked over 6 months.

You keep on saying this as if it was a given truth. The Soviet command system worked exceptionally well, it was very well structured to deliver the model of warfare they had worked by late 1942.

The problem is, I agree, that hooking armies to Stavka is too effective. The only instance I can find of armies that were in contact using that structure was the Volkhov-Tikhvin battles in late 41. The resulting problems of control and convoluted communications (plus one of the armies - 54th - was assigned to the Leningrad command) meant that looks like a one-off. The result was the creation of the Volkhov front.

So what we need is a suitable malus that means any army subordinated to Stavka suffers a command malus if it is attacking or defending. That would mirror the Tikhvin experience and wider Soviet operational practice.

[Peltonx]

I am not saying Staka was a bad or did not get better over time.

GHC is worse then SHC as the rule set is now Light years worse. The only way to even get GHC on even footing with SHC is to delete 40 Corp, because they are usless.

GHC command and control was much more fluid and could make changes on the fly unlike SHC. SHC worked as needed, but it was poor at the tactical level.

[swkuh]

Doing strange things with command chains seems a bit gamey to me. Think the developers missed a point by allowing too much intervention here. Command chains changed over time and quality of command surely did, too.

[The Guru]

Why not just change the rule 11.3.2:
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units to which the unit involved is not directly attached, i.e. HQ units higher up the chain of command."

actually, I'm a little puzzled. Why is there a range modifier divisor shown for Corps, when it's only supposed to apply, as per the rule, to HQ's "higher up in the chain of command"? How can a Corps HQ be higher up in the chain of command?
I always thought that Corps HQs added 1 to the Die-base for each hex distant from their attached unit...

Does this rule mean that if you attach ALL units to Stavka under Zhukov none of them will suffer from distance modifier?!?!?!?

[rmonical]

actually, I'm a little puzzled. Why is there a range modifier divisor shown for Corps, when it's only supposed to apply, as per the rule

If you go back to the initiative check thread tm.asp?m=3300597, Pavel points out that the range modifier is implemented at all level of command by first subtracting 5.

Range check is done on all levels. As I can see range modifiers in your tables are incorrect.

Ex.
Corps range 5 rg mod = abs(5-5)/1 = 0
Army range 10. rg mod = abs(10-5)/2 = 2
AG range 15. rg mod = abs(15-5)/3 = 3
HC range 30. rg mod = abs(30-5)/4 = 6
etc..