Directive 21

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I agree that there should be a fourth 'recon' KG. The number of available equipment slots in each unit prevented me from doing this. The alternative of making four unbalanced KG's may work from an historical unit arrangement perspective, but it doesn't work in the historical simulation of the scenario. By that I mean that the historical KG's were organised as stated, but then they could be altered depending on the situation. Later in the scenario when faced with being attacked by numbers of division sized units, the four KG arrangement would leave the two weaker KG's very vulnerable, and perhaps even a burden.

But we can do both things. Directive 21 already has an 'early-war' and a 'late-war' depiction of the panzer divisions.

The early-war version can be the 'unbalanced' attack version representing the offensive posture of the panzer divisions (certainly through 1942 and probably until Kursk). Think 'KG Peiper' when considering the spearhead/assault/breakthrough/overrun KG for the division. The early-war divisions need a powerful KG capable of overrunning and breaking through Soviet formations.

The late-war version can be the 'balanced' version similar to what already exists in Directive 21 (the only significant change in the later-war version I'd make would be to strengthen the recon KG (my reading of history indicates that StuGs and armored engineers were the main 'strengtheners' used to strengthen the recon KG)).

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The mutations of the HG Pz Div also has me puzzled at times. I should purchase a book on the history of this unit. In lieu of that, I can take any advise you have on what to do there.

The good news is that we have time to revise the OOB for the Herman Goring Division because the division (as a division) did not see combat on the Eastern Front until later in the war.

However, the unit that needs to be depicted immediately is the Regiment General Goring. This regiment was basically an overstrength Flak regiment (fully motorized) that had a battalion of panzergrenadiers (plus assorted small assets that a reinforced regiment would have) added. Regiment General Goring was present and active during Barbarossa.

EDIT: Regiment General Goring was originally attached to the 11th Panzer Division, and so can be deployed with that division on 22 June 41.

[vahauser]

Here is the TO/E of Regiment General Goring for Barbarossa:

Order of battle (15 Jun 1941)
Regimentsstab General Göring (Oberst Conrath)
Nachrichtenzug (Oberleutnant Schirmer)
Werkstattzug/RGG (Amtmann Gmelch)
Transport Group (Hauptmann Kumacsek)
I. Flak-Abteilung/RGG (Major Hullmann)
1. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Graf)
2. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Hauptmann Schulz)
3. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Hauptmann Schröder)
5. Batterie (12 x 2cm) (Hauptmann Neubauer)
IV. Flak-Abteilung/RGG (Hauptmann Geicke)
6. Batterie (9 x 3.7cm) (Oberleutnant Behrends)
15. Batterie (6 x 2cm; 6 x 3.7cm) (Hauptmann Beinhofer)
16. Batterie (mot S Ketten) (12 x 2cm) (Oberleutnant Roßmann)
Schützen-Bataillon/RGG (Hauptmann Funck)
8. Batterie (mot S Rader) (12 x 2cm) (Hauptmann Seewald)
1. Schützen-Kompanie (Oberleutnant Krohn)
3. Schützen-Kompanie (Hauptmann Brandenburg)
Kradschützen-Kompanie (Hauptmann Preuß)
II. Flak-Abteilung/Flak-Regiment 43 (Major Karlhuber)
6. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Rengermann)
7. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Wittkowsky)
8. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Hagel)
9. Batterie (12 x 2cm) (Oberleutnant Belau)
10. Batterie (12 x 2cm) (Hauptmann Schlechtweg)

EDIT1: From what I can tell, most of the transport (fully motorized) should be trucks with some halftracks (the halftracks were probably for the panzergrenadiers). I'm not sure about the recon assets, looks like mostly motorcycles with a few armored cars.

EDIT2: It looks like the regiment maintained this TO/E until the summer of 1942, when the regiment was withdrawn from the Eastern Front for reorganization into a brigade (that was subsequently deployed to the Mediterranean).

[vahauser]

The attached screenshot is my interpretation of what Regiment General Goring should look like. Notice the unit proficiency of 85%. This takes me to the next 'larger issue' -- unit proficiencies.

[vahauser]

German unit proficiencies. The following unit proficiencies apply to German (and probably Finnish) unit proficiencies. These are my interpretations of history applied to the ‘historical simulation’ of Directive 21:

60% = Inferior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
65% = Poor (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
70% = Fair (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
75% = Average (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
80% = Good (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
85% = Excellent (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
90% = Superior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)

I think 1942 is pretty close to 1941 in terms of quality. 1943 is not as good as 1941 in terms of overall quality, although the very best German formations are still pretty close to 1941 quality. 1944 is not as good as 1943, and even the very best German formations are starting to show a decline in quality. 1945 is not as good as 1944, and even the very best German formations are noticeably below 1941 quality. What does this mean? For units in combat from 1941 not much. But for newly-formed units entering the game as reinforcements, the date of entry should have a definite impact on their unit proficiencies.

The size of a formation should also have an impact on its proficiency. It is easier to maintain a small formation at a high level of quality than a large one. This should be self-evident. As far as divisions go, I would rate only three divisions in the entire German Armed Forces as 90%: 1st Fallschirmjager (7th Flieger Division also counts because it was the core of 1st Fallschirmjager), Panzer Lehr (until it was destroyed in Normandy), and Grossdeutschland.

In terms of Directive 21, the only ground units I would rate as 90% proficiency are the Brandenburger commando battalions, 7th Flieger Division, and Grossdeutschland. [As an aside, I have no major complaints regarding rating the Luftwaffe air units as 90% because of the way the air system works, which is very different from the ground system.]

Why don’t I rate any Waffen-SS units as 90%? I will explain that in another ‘larger issue’ yet to come.

Anyway, I think that a large number of German units need to be re-examined in terms of their unit proficiencies. And, in most cases, these re-examined units should have their proficiencies reduced, especially newly-formed units later in the game arriving as reinforcements (the ‘100 series’ panzer brigades in 1944 immediately spring to mind).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

German unit proficiencies. The following unit proficiencies apply to German (and probably Finnish) unit proficiencies. These are my interpretations of history applied to the ‘historical simulation’ of Directive 21:

60% = Inferior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
65% = Poor (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
70% = Fair (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
75% = Average (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
80% = Good (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
85% = Excellent (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
90% = Superior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)

I think 1942 is pretty close to 1941 in terms of quality. 1943 is not as good as 1941 in terms of overall quality, although the very best German formations are still pretty close to 1941 quality. 1944 is not as good as 1943, and even the very best German formations are starting to show a decline in quality. 1945 is not as good as 1944, and even the very best German formations are noticeably below 1941 quality. What does this mean? For units in combat from 1941 not much. But for newly-formed units entering the game as reinforcements, the date of entry should have a definite impact on their unit proficiencies.

The size of a formation should also have an impact on its proficiency. It is easier to maintain a small formation at a high level of quality than a large one. This should be self-evident. As far as divisions go, I would rate only three divisions in the entire German Armed Forces as 90%: 1st Fallschirmjager (7th Flieger Division also counts because it was the core of 1st Fallschirmjager), Panzer Lehr (until it was destroyed in Normandy), and Grossdeutschland.

In terms of Directive 21, the only ground units I would rate as 90% proficiency are the Brandenburger commando battalions, 7th Flieger Division, and Grossdeutschland. [As an aside, I have no major complaints regarding rating the Luftwaffe air units as 90% because of the way the air system works, which is very different from the ground system.]

Why don’t I rate any Waffen-SS units as 90%? I will explain that in another ‘larger issue’ yet to come.

Anyway, I think that a large number of German units need to be re-examined in terms of their unit proficiencies. And, in most cases, these re-examined units should have their proficiencies reduced, especially newly-formed units later in the game arriving as reinforcements (the ‘100 series’ panzer brigades in 1944 immediately spring to mind).

Things have changed with OPART III -- but one used to get ferocious turn-burn with any unit rated at above about 85% proficiency. If a unit was at or reached 90% or so, it became offensively unusable -- not unless you were prepared to see your turn end the minute it attacked.

Something to bear in mind. As with beer, more proficiency is not invariably better.

[vahauser]

Colin,
 
Directive 21 sets the MRPB to 3 to handle turn burn.  Further, Directive 21 has dozens of ground units at 90%.  I'm saying that that is not historically accurate.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I agree that there should be a fourth 'recon' KG. The number of available equipment slots in each unit prevented me from doing this. The alternative of making four unbalanced KG's may work from an historical unit arrangement perspective, but it doesn't work in the historical simulation of the scenario. By that I mean that the historical KG's were organised as stated, but then they could be altered depending on the situation. Later in the scenario when faced with being attacked by numbers of division sized units, the four KG arrangement would leave the two weaker KG's very vulnerable, and perhaps even a burden.

Well, I've done some more examination of the panzer-division regimental kampfgruppen, and I'm convinced that something needs to be done to change the way these kampfgruppen are depicted in Directive 21. Instead of being 'balanced', the divisional KGs are identical.

If the divisional KGs are going to be identical, then the division might as well be represented as a division (like the infantry divisions are) and let the players divide their divisions (or not) as they see fit into brigades or regiments. Indeed, I like this idea much better than having identical individual regimental KGs that cannot be combined into a single powerful unit.

As it stands now in Directive 21 (Rev-1), having the division already broken down into identical regimental KGs makes the division much less powerful, and, thus, not historically accurate in terms of representing the German 'Armored Fist'.

[sPzAbt653]

If a unit was at or reached 90% or so, it became offensively unusable

Thanks Colin,

I remembered a discussion about this some time ago, so we did change the 90% units to 80%. With the MRPB at 3, 90% units might still restrict a turn to 3 rounds. This is ok, but we don't want it caused solely by unit proficiency.

Victor, we are keeping track of the playtesters opinions concerning the playability aspect of KG's compared to combined PzDiv's. So far it is overwhelmingly in favor of KG's.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

Directive 21 sets the MRPB to 3 to handle turn burn.  Further, Directive 21 has dozens of ground units at 90%.  I'm saying that that is not historically accurate.

Well, proficiency is relative -- and it's not a moral judgement. As far as 'historical accuracy' goes, it's only one of a number of elements that together contribute to unit value.

For example, to get an effect, I might make Japanese units very high proficiency -- but with 'assault recon teams' or something. I want them to take heavy losses. High proficiency coupled with easily destroyed weapons is one way of making that happen -- since the units won't break off combat. The proficiency rating doesn't mean I necessarily have a high opinion of the Japanese army.

It's all about tweaking and balancing to get the effect you want. In Seelowe I set all British proficiencies about 10 points higher than I might otherwise -- but the British have 90% shock and other disabilities. So I wind up with about the combat power I want -- but have a force and formations that are highly vulnerable to early turn ending, going into reorganization, and otherwise simulating that inimitable British tendency to just sit there.

The converse could be done just as easily. You might rate the actual combat ability of German troops as not all that much higher than that of the Russians in a Stalingrad-type setting, so set everyone at 60-70% -- but really go after the shock, formation proficiencies, and force proficiencies.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Victor, we are keeping track of the playtesters opinions concerning the playability aspect of KG's compared to combined PzDiv's. So far it is overwhelmingly in favor of KG's.

Okay. But why name one KG 'panzer' and the other two KGs 'motorized' when they are all three identical? They should all be the same (which should be 'panzergrendier').

It is disingenuous to label one KG as 'panzer' and the other two KGs as 'motorized' because players will use the military symbols on the counters when making tactical decisions, and this would lead players to make potentially unsound choices. They don't realize (I certainly didn't until I dug deeper) that all three KGs are identical.

And there is a reason that the playtesters are overwhelmingly in favor of KGs instead of combining them into their divisions -- habit. It is a holdover from FitE and players are used to playing FitE. But Directive 21 is not FitE. It plays differently. All I'm saying is that just because players are used to doing things a certain way, it shouldn't mean that other ways of doing things should not be explored. Here is a suggestion. You can perform several playtests in parallel. Have some playtests with Directive 21 as it currently exists. Have other playtests with a version of Directive 21 that has the KGs combined into their divisions.

Here is another concern why I'm not a fan of the regimental KGs for the panzer divisions (besides the fact that they are identical) -- ants. We all know how to abuse ants. Perhaps this is another reason why playtesters like the regimental KGs. It gives them more ants, and, thus, more ways to abuse the game system.

Further, there already exists a panzer division in Directive 21 that is organized similar to(but not quite) what I'm suggesting -- the Hermann Goring Panzer Division. That division is different from every other panzer division currently in Directive 21. And if we can have one division like that, then why not the others?

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, proficiency is relative -- and it's not a moral judgement. As far as 'historical accuracy' goes, it's only one of a number of elements that together contribute to unit value.

. . .

I'm not making moral judgments. I'm talking about actual German proficiencies in Directive 21. The vast majority of German units in Directive 21 have a proficiency of 80%. That seems to be the generic standard for German units. So, I'm talking about what actually exists. Have you actually looked at Directive 21?

In my original post on this issue (EDIT: post #44), I rate a 1941 German proficiency of 80% as 'Good'. sPzAbt653 has mentioned 'historical simulation' as a design goal. I agree with this in theory. However, which units 'should' vary from the generic standard of 80% is the content of what I want to discuss.

80% is the proficiency of the standard German combat unit in 1941. This is a fact in Directive 21. And I'm not interested in changing that fact. So, the questions become: If 80% is the standard by which all other German units are compared, then (A) which units should vary from the 80% standard?, and (B) why? Those are the questions to be answered. I've raised this as one of my 'larger issues' because I believe that the answers to (A) and (B) are important.

Setting the MRPB to 3 means that high proficiencies will not cause turn burn. I have no problem with that. In fact, I like it like that. So, we return to questions (A) and (B).

I personally think that too many German ground units have been given proficiencies of 90% in Directive 21 (which is one reason, among several, that I called this a 'larger issue'). I would like to see that number drastically cut to only a handful of units (i.e., the Brandenburger commandos, 7th Flieger Division, and Grossdeutschland).

If we are on the same page now, then I'd like to move on to actually answering (A) and (B).

[sPzAbt653]

Have some playtests with Directive 21 as it currently exists. Have other playtests with a version of Directive 21 that has the KGs combined into their divisions.

That's been done from the start, with LAH, DAS, TOT and WIK all using the combined configuration.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Have some playtests with Directive 21 as it currently exists. Have other playtests with a version of Directive 21 that has the KGs combined into their divisions.

That's been done from the start, with LAH, DAS, TOT and WIK all using the combined configuration.

Yes. I like that a lot! Now, if only we can do the same with the rest of the mobile divisions (plus the rest of the SS divisions, plus the security divisions), then everything would be consistent. [And I would sing your praises, too.]

[OTZ]

How does one acquire this mod?

[vahauser]

After some additional research, Regiment General Goring was withdrawn from the Eastern Front at the end of November, 1941 (never to return).  I think that corresponds to Turn 46 or so in terms of Directive 21.
 
[As an aside, the schutzen battalion was sent to act as a temporary garrison at Ploesti, but, for the purposes of Directive 21, it's probably easiest to just withdraw the entire regiment.]

[sPzAbt653]

Regiment General Goring was withdrawn from the Eastern Front at the end of November, 1941

After leaving most of the heavy AAA assets back at the airfields and HQ's that they were defending, what we ended up with is this, the reinforced battalion that was sent to the front. It withdraws on turn 45 to go to France, North Africa and Italy where it evolves into a full division, and appears late in the scenario after it was transferred from Italy.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Regiment General Goring was withdrawn from the Eastern Front at the end of November, 1941

After leaving most of the heavy AAA assets back at the airfields and HQ's that they were defending, what we ended up with is this, the reinforced battalion that was sent to the front.

I'm confused. The following was taken from the Wikipedia:

During the invasion of Poland, only a small part of the regiment was involved in the fighting. The majority of the unit was to stay in Berlin to continue their duties providing flak protection and guards for Göring and the NSDAP leadership. During Operation Weserübung, elements of the regiment (a guard battalion, a motorcycle company and a flak component) took part in the campaign and acquitted themselves well.

After the capitulation of the Netherlands, the regiment was broken up into several small kampfgruppes and these were attached to the panzer divisions spearheading the advance. The regiment again acquitted itself well, especially the flak troops, who often operated in an anti-armour capacity. In an engagement at Mormal Wood, heavy 8.8 cm FlaK 18s engaged French tanks at ranges of only a few yards. During this battle, the regiment gained a reputation for steadfastness under fire.

Barbarossa got underway on 22 June 1941, and during the campaign, the regiment was attached to the 11.Panzer-Division, a part of Army Group South. The regiment saw action around the areas of Radziechow, Kiev and Brjansk, again proving its worth and destroying many Soviet tanks with their 8.8 cm flak guns. At the end of 1941, the regiment was returned to Germany for rest and refit, having suffered moderate casualties in the campaign. The Schützen-Bataillon Hermann Göring remained at the front until May 1942.

The point of all this is that the Regiment General Goring did not leave its heavy 88s behind when it invaded the USSR. It used those 88s in front-line combat (just like it did in France a year earlier). EDIT: Note also that the Wikipedia stated that the whole regiment (not pieces or kampfgruppes of the regiment like Poland and France before) saw action at Kiev and Bryansk, etc.

EDIT2: This is not that big a deal. I'm far more concerned about larger issues.

[vahauser]

After some playtest experimentation, I think that setting the environment to 'Occasional Precipitation' works best.  I used to think that 'No Precipitation' was best, but I no longer believe that.

EDIT: Every now and again you will have to reload to get good weather on 22 June 41 when using 'Occasional Precipitation', but not very often. I've come to the conclusion that having a few rainclouds is more realistic than none at all. So, now I advocate 'Occasional Precipitation' instead of 'No Precipitation'.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

After some playtest experimentation, I think that setting the environment to 'Occasional Precipitation' works best.  I used to think that 'No Precipitation' was best, but I no longer believe that.

EDIT: Every now and again you will have to reload to get good weather on 22 June 41 when using 'Occasional Precipitation', but not very often. I've come to the conclusion that having a few rainclouds is more realistic than none at all. So, now I advocate 'Occasional Precipitation' instead of 'No Precipitation'.

I get about 10% cloud cover even with 'no precipitation.'