Test Scenario: War in the East_Divisional Level

[Redmarkus5]

Thanks Serg - good comments.

I agree on the bazookas.

Re: the Stalin Line, please see my earlier comments. We are trying to find a game solution to slow down the German advance. As you say, the line was there so why not show it on the map and see if it has an effect? Otherwise, the German side will be in Moscow by August. To be honest, if I'd realised how much controversy adding an actual historical feature to the map would trigger I would have left it out

Regarding the Pripet, there must have been some roads becuase there are at least two major towns right in the middle of the marshes - Pinsk and one other. I know that the engineers extended these by other means, but the AI isn't going to do that. How about leaving the road there on the map , maybe with blown bridges, and introducing a house rule for human players that says only the Soviets may advance through the Pripet?

Red

[serg3d1]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
How about leaving the road there on the map , maybe with blown bridges, and introducing a house rule for human players that says only the Soviets may advance through the Pripet?

I like this idea - that is as historical as it could be.

Otherwise, the German side will be in Moscow by August.

Add more tanks to Soviets ?
Red Army had plenty of tanks, with only T-34 and KV more than 3000 and another ten thousand of T-26 and BT (against three and half something thousand Germans).
It could be balanced by giving AT capabilities to German AA guns. Historically AA guns were main German AT weapon against medium/heavy russian tanks in the first weeks of Barbarossa. What was Red Army lacked severely were infantry and trucks. Both should have been arrived after mobilization. Shortage of infantry was one of the reason why German infantry was so effective in burning russian tanks.
Also another not well known historical fact was that Soviet aviation was not in fact destroyed on "sleeping airfields". Strike against airfields cost Luftwaffe dearly, and while reducing soviet air force didn't destroyed it. Soviet aviation remain major factor in delaying German advance, and even did manage to gain local air superiority from time to time. May be it could be modeled by forcing Soviet aviation exert high anti-supply, but without doing many airstrikes. Easy if human play Soviet, but not sure if AI would understand that.

[seille]

Do you have any sources here for the 3000 T34 and KV in the initial red army OOB ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Establishing_and_maintaining_production
There i found nothing except the fact that the early T34 had some mechanical problems
and more losses due to this than to enemy tanks. Although it was a feared opponent !
 
KV was similar. Very slow, bad target optic and often no radio (no coordination in attacks).
 
For the air attacks. The Germans destroyed about 2000 russian planes in the first day. Most by ground attack.
The most of their own losses they had to problems with a specific bomb type and the russian flak.
But in one thing i agree: In the actual 1941 russia scenario a clever player will pick up all russian planes on turn 1.
There are no reserves in the backland. No tanks and no planes. It´s all in the frontline.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations
Here are two interesting tables included that show the overall strength of the russian army and
the numbers placed in the west.
So "only" 10.700 of 18.700 planes has been in the west.
And only 15.700 of 25.700 tanks has been in the west.
 
As far as i know many of the russian western front planes was just in a phase of restructuring
and receiving new/modern planes. They were not ready for the fight at this time. 
 
@RedMarkus
When you want to slow down the german advance i don´t think setting fortuifications or more troops
in their way is the right solution. Why you don´t simply make their units a bit slower (reducing the movement rate) ?
Or making the map bigger ?
 

[PDiFolco]

About number of Sov tanks in 1941, found this
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41_organ/41_afv_mech_forces.html
 
"Only" 1000-odd T-34s and 400 or so KV, but indeed 10,000 or so old small tanks.

[serg3d1]

Yep, I've rechecked numbers, I was off by half - 967 T-34 in western districts and 636 KV-1 and KV-2 (of them no more than 100 KV-2) produced. Probably all of them were deployed in western districts. from russian wikipedia.

About Luftwaffe losses - I've read big part of them were not from flaks, but fighters, scrambled to defend airfields. Seems most of them were in combat readiness. If you are interested I can try to find more information about it.

[SMK-at-work]

The number and type of tanks in service in each military district on June 1 41 can be seen at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/tank_number_june01_41.htm

German single-engined fighter strength for some quarters up to 1942 can be found at http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/gob.htm

Anti-tank - at the level of this scenario I wound not bother with bazooka's at all.  Infantry have some integral anti-tank strength that increases as tehy improve, and IMO that is adequate to represent the normal integral AT - whether it be AT rifles or Pzfausts and -shreks.

Redmarkus the point aobut the Stalin line is that it did NOT slow the Germans down appreciably, so putting it in to do so is not historic at all.  It wasn't the Stalin line that stopped them getting to Moscow - it was supply, lack of replacements, and soviet resistance. The Russians built fortifications around Moscow - the Mozhaisk line and more closer to the city.  They fought great battles at Smolensk (1 newly arrived full-strength rifle division from "Siberia" held a German panzer corps for 3 days and forced it to retreat), crushing the Soviet armies at Vyazma took time, the Russians mobilised millions - they started the war with 4 or 5 million in the army IIRC, lost that number in 1941, but the army got bigger!

those are the factors that you need to replicate to give an "accurate" account of het campaign - and if you do a good joband the Germans are still in Moscow by August then that's teh Soviet player's problem...not yours [:)]

Serge I've never seen anything that says that the VVs had any significant effect on German supply in 1941.  Luftwaffe casualties in the first few days of Barbarossa were light - their first attack lost 18 aircraft - some to their own bombs!

But certainly the VVS was not destroyed - bomber crews attacked targets with great bravery - but the pre-war training of level bombing from 9000 feet proved inaccurate - so they came down to 6000 feet...and German light flak masaacred them.  they also found that level bombers were easy prey for fighters....much as the British had found with the Fairey Battle in France in 1940 - the Su-2 for example, was almost exactly the same type of aeroplane.  Indeed the Su-2 was even worse off because it was so secret that some of them were shot down by Soviet fighters sent to escort them when the fighter pilots did not recognise them!!

so some of those modern aircraft were not successful - the Su-2 and the Mig-3 mainly - there was nothing wrong with them, but they were designed to fight the wrong war (the Su-2 I've mentioned, the Mig-3 was a high altitude fighter - faster than anythign the Germans had, but lightly armed and not so well suited to low and medium altitidues). Other apparently good modern a/c that didnt' see much service include the Yak-4 (light bomber and didn't compare well to the Pe-2 in that role), Pe-3 (heavy fighter version of the Pe-2, wasn't really needed, saw some service as night fighter), Yer-2 bomber (role was filled by Pe-2) - these were all built in the hundreds, but production eitehr stopped soon after Barbarossa, or only continued at a very low level.

[PDiFolco]

redmarkus
Just some news : the new version is underways, it has new Militia and Partisans units, and Mud weather. I have to test it some more before "releasing" it, maybe tomorrow.

[SMK-at-work]

I'm playing Russia 42 at the moment - it's mid 43 and the Fascists are almost back at the start of the map (on AI+), so I look forward to trying this out [:)][&o]

[Redmarkus5]

Thanks al for your great inputs and PDF for the upcoming version.  I'm working away this week with loads of spare time in the evenings, so after PDF uploads I will make more OOB changes and let you know where we are at.
 
I'm playing the latest version with reduced German supply and things are starting to slow down around late July.  (BTW, reducing the movement factors for the Axis units would mean that all movement is reduced, including the 22 June to early July period, so it is mud, logistics and soviet resistance we need to model.
 
I blew the Pripet bridges in edit mode and it's hell to get through there now without engineers.  Possible, but very slow and not a real option for the Axis.
 
Red

[Redmarkus5]

OK, I've been playing as the Axis against the AI and following the key historical directives of cutting off Leningrad before sending Pz Grp 4 down to assist AG Centre, and also sending PG 3 south to encirle Kiev from the rear.  Even so, PG 2 has still been able to get close to Moscow by August 24, although the resistence is much stiffer than in previous versions.
 
I was going to strenghten the soviet units but I have noticed one key issue: the AI is buying huge numbers of fighters + some dive bombers, and placing them right up near the front.  We are talking about 23 fighters + 9 dive bombers in one unit, and I've seen 3 or 4 units like that.  Of course, they are getting wiped out by my ground forces as soon as they arrive in the front line.  On the other hand, the AI seems to be buying very few Rifle units.  Is this a known problem or something to do with the scenario?  It makes play against the AI pretty meaningless.
 
A couple of other observations:
 
1. The AI definitely does blow bridges - I've now seen at least 10 cases of this, which is great.
2. Although I feel I will have to remove the Stalin Line due to popular demand, I just want to say that units in fortifications are not immune to concentric attack in AT - I've seen a number of Concentric attacks go in successfully on such units.  Someone was saying they were immune...?
3.  Rain and mud actually affected the Axis along the length of the front as early as the first week of August.  It delayed them by a week or more in several key places.  PDF: Maybe we need a mini-muddy period (variable dates?) between 01 and 10 August, followed by the real thing during Oct and Nov. 
4. Also for PDF:  can we have a set of events that triggers the placement of the Soviet reserve armies?  Say, 2nd echelon appears when the first Axis unit captures any hex in a given vertical, next one when Axis unit is within 10 hexes of Moscow, next when they near Moscow, etc?  If yes, I'll let you know the required OOBs for each phase.
 
Red.

[Vic]

i hope the AI will do better with air units in v1.1. i am working on it.

[Redmarkus5]

Cheers Vic.  I guess you know what you're going to do already, but here are my thoughts:
 
1. Logic that will make any airunit rebase if an enemy unit occupies a hex within 1 turn's movement limit.
2. Range adjustments to air units to compensate as an option for designers?  Given 1 or 2 week turns, this would represent re-basing, temporary forward fields , etc.
3. A force ratio parameter that will make the AI aim for a balance between all arms.  Maybe this could also be set by the scenario designer on a month-bymonth or year-by-year basis?  Some sliders would be great, and in release 2.0 this could go down a level (e.g. fighter vs tac vs long range bomber, etc?  Thus, UK can be told to build a larger navy in 1940, while USA focuses more on air power until 1943 etc.
4. A meaure of 'control of the air' that would dictate whether the AI focuses on more fighters or more bombers.  This could simply be a formula based on the ratio of assets of the opposing forces, and taking into account their readiness, morale, experience and the level of research reached per regime in the relevant areas.
5. Again for v2.0, the ability to specifically target airfield infrastructure - not necessarily planes on the ground - as the Germans did in the early phases of the Battle of Britain and other operations.
6. For v2.0; each production centre could have certain production 'assets'.  Once Moscow starts building tanks or fighters, it has factories that do this.  These can then be the targets for bombing.  A successful attack on a tank factory should impact tank production and manpower (but not fighter production).  Players could have a 'basic' or 'advanced' air strike option where they either just plaster everything or they select more specific targets.  There would need to be designer settings for accuracy, giving chances of compete misses or hits on other targets, manpower, etc.
 
Just a 'few' thoughts!  Hope I haven't repeated a load of stuff others have said elsewhere.
 
R

[seille]

5. is already there (since early alpha version....). Just do a strategic attack on the airfield and you´ll damage the infrastructure very effective.
6. Is a nice idea. Asked Vic long time ago for and he said no [;)], but i wanted to attack the cities airfield OR production.
 
But in the case Vic will allow to attack "production slots" how the attacker can know what in the slot´s production is actually ?
Or do you talk about fixed production? So 2 slots can produce only tanks, another infantry and the last supply ?
This is indeed a option to talk about.
 
Increased plane range would be a dream for me, but i don´t think it would be fair since the other player has no chance to react
during all these attacks.
In many games i would have been able to knock out bigger parts of enemy production and destroying ALL interceptors.
Europe 1939 is a good example. In one of them i used Levelbomber IV and Fighter IV. With the settings you have in mind i would
crush the german production and air defense within one or two turns. It´s simply not balanced, even it would be realistic.
Doing this you had to rework the complete plane set (attack values as most important). Actually i think you can do all this just by a
bigger reduction of the planes movement costs. But i hope Vic will let the masterfile as it is here [:)]

[PDiFolco]

Redmarkus

I've made Mud weather during March (if no snow) and 50% in April, to simulate the "rasputitsa"- ice melting in Spring. I can add some "Fall mud" if you want, but maybe less penalizing...I've made snow only +50% and mud +100% on average, with wheeled units being more penalised and foot/horse less.
It's possible to trigger unit arrival when some enmey enter a given zone, but I'm not sure it's the best way to do it, as it can make players make "gamey" things to get them or not, I'd prefer a activation by Action cards that cost something (but here with only 3 vp per side it can't be vp !).
Anyway I didn't have time to work on it today, so get the file here : http://pascal.difolco.free.fr/WiTE_Divi ... PDF_v4.pt2
As I have new SFTypes it requires a couple graphics, to install in bin/graphics, it creates a WITE directory : http://pascal.difolco.free.fr/WITE_Graphics.zip

[Redmarkus5]

Thanks PDF. I will install and test.

The mud effects in the autumn (15 Oct to 15) Nov are also very important.

Cheers,

Red

[serg3d1]

I don't think I'd like idea of targeting production slots. AI would probaly botch it and it add unnecessary level of micromanagement.

[Redmarkus5]

Sorry - this is a long post, but I'm really hooked by this game.

I didn't realise I could do the airflield interdict with the strategic attack function - seems obvious now that you say it!

Regarding production and micro-management, as raised by Serg, I do think there are at least 2 different communities playing the game. One wants a simple, fast and exciting set of battles that can be played in a few hours or less. The second wants to be able to build convincing historical representations of major conflicts, with economic, military and diplomatic facets all modelled to a fair level of detail.

Now, I think AT has BY FAR the best engine ever built for both such communities and I've played almost everything ever built. As a member of the second (let's call it the 'I was really a world conquering dictator in the last life' group) I can see a huge number of ways that this could evolve. I think (again) that a 'basic/advanced' set of options is the key to this. In fact, at the basic level I wouldn't even display air units on the map. I would:

1. Allocate a % of production to the air war.
2. Set the ratios for air supremacy, CAS, Interdiction and Strat Bombing.
3. Let the a 'random dice roll model' do the rest and report the results each turn.

The AI could always use this basic approach, even if the human player wants to get technical. The scenario designer could input some parameters for the AI to use, including a set of responses to the Human player's status and priorities (e.g. if AI Air Supremacy is less than 50% then assign 75% of fighters to Air Suprem and build more fighters, etc.). Overall, if the odds of misses and bad intel are set right, it would probably work out about even anyway. (I know, so why add the feature? Because we can at least imagine we're influencing the outcome!)

At the advanced level I want to be able to target worker's housing and a ball bearing factory tonight, followed by the submarine pens and a secret rocket complex tomorrow. Speaking of submarine pens... hmmm, version 5?

As far as intelligence about targets goes, a fog of war approach is needed. As the war goes on, I should learn more about the other side's dispositions, industry and infrastructure, etc - assuming I'm winning the air war and have experienced crews (there's no need for setting specific recon missions IMO because there are too few on-map air units). If I'm losing in the air, then I would expect to know less about everything on the enemy side. The same applies to bomb damage assessments which would always have a variable accuracy parameter anyway. This might need to be supported by an enhanced strategic map view, with overlays for strategic issues such as:

1. Air warfare - showing bomber ranges, figher ranges, air control % per front and allowing for the transfers of assets (sliders) and setting of priorities. Am I dreaming now? We're talking version 8.0...
2. Submarine AS warfare
3. Anti-partisan and policing - rather than units, let's just allocate a % of manpower and receive a report on how effective it is. Partisan attacks should really only be AS attacks in this game IMO.

Don't forget that on many missions the bombers couldn't even find the correct city, much less hit it. When supporting their own ground units there were many cases of 'blue on blue' as well. Let's have them in Version 10.5!!!

Vic - if you ask me, this game knocks the socks off TOAW, HOI, CEAW etc. and has way more potential. It looks so much better too. Many of the players of those games are frustrated with them. There's your market - don't wish to sound patronising.

R

[tweber]

I have been following the thread with interest and had some ideas that may help:

Planned :
* Russian Militias and Partisans (these last one won't consume *any* supply, I think this is the right way of simulatinfg guerillas) - but I need a couple pics. I'll also change the "partisans" event to get the new partisans, Militia will be a standard SFType, inferior infantry not upgradeable (cost 60, but fight -30% less well than infantry)

I might set the supply consumed to be 1/6th of the carry. This gives them 6 turns of supply. A unit that never needs supply is pretty powerful and can do some nasty things.

New units - Militia, partisans (that could require no supply, that'll be cool), can be done easily - available at start and not upgradable. "Guard", "SS" should not be specific SFTypes imho, they had same basic equipment, already available, and superior training/morale/exp can be done via special "regimes" or by events (ie an action card).

I am writing a scenario where these 'special' units are a different people type. I then give them a combat bonus against regular troops.

Ok, I'll try to reworl on this this evening. About Militia I suggest to make them "level 0" infantry, upgradable to Infantry I. Or else maybe they can be un-upgradable but "transformed" by event to regular Inf when they have enough xp - I have to check the possible checks !

In the scenario I am writing, I model low caliber troops ('conscripts') by making them cheaper to purchase, giving them rifle defense stats and very poor offensive stats. Also, there is an exec the 'mutates' from one sftype to another. You could automatically mutuate a few of these units every so often into regular infantry.

Here are some links I have found helpful painting the production picture

Soviet tank production

German tank production. It does not split out the Eastern front but you might assume ~75% of post 1940 production went east.

GDP during the war. This one is interesting. German GDP was constant until 1945. This might suggest that allied bombing was not that decisive.

Hope this helps. Send me a note if you need help with event scripting.

[Redmarkus5]

Maybe the conscript units could mutate to 'Rifle' when their exprience and morale both reach set points? Or would that happen too quickly? Is the time taken for these values to change editable?

[tweber]

If you want to have the upgrade based on experience, you can do this with the current research structure.  Make your 'conscript' unit upgrade to rifle and set an appropriate research threshold. 
 
The mutate exec changes a designer set number of units.  You might make it that 1 conscript is upgraded per turn (out of the 40 or so that may be in the hex).  This will probably have the same effect.