Directive 21 playtesters thread

[sPzAbt653]

sPz Abt and PzJg Abt have unique 7/1 and 6/2. Might be worth looking for the other exotics and standardize on one type.

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm wondering why this would be done.

Luftwaffe, Italian, Rumanian and Russian Rifle Div's are all lacking significant numbers of Inf squads.

What numbers would be considered correct, and would the change make these units too strong in relevance to their historical performance?

Also the Pz Divisions are all significantly overstrength

I would think that the numbers reflect establishment, although they often operated below these numbers due to losses. How many rifle squads did a full strength Pz Div have?

I am considering combining the Pz Div's into one unit at some point in 1944, and this will reflect the reduced strength of these units after several years of multiple front war.

Here's my suggestion for the Recon Abt in 41/early 42.

For D21, the Kradshutz and Auf battalions were combined, and I wanted to check if your suggestion takes that it account, or if it is only an organisation for the Auf batt's.

[MechFO]

The Aufkl Abt as such didn't exist in Mid 41. Their companies seem to have been parcelled out to the various Kradschützen Bat, so that the Recon of a Pz Div would consist of a Kradschützen Bat + attached AC company in late 41. In 42 this was then reorganised into a Pz Aufkl Abt (pending available equiptment) with the Kradschützen being disbanded.

A Pz Div with 4 Mot Inf Bat should have no more than 144 Inf Squads (36 per Bat) and 12-16 Eng Squads (4 per Bat). Some Division only had 3 Mot Inf Bats. This is without the Pionier and Kradsch Bats.

A Russian RD should have about 280 Inf Squads (included are 27 to 54 SMG Squads from 42 onward), 20 Eng Sq and 18 Cavalry Squads. In 45 this can be cut to the 120 (plus 54 SMG Squads), i.e. the current RD numbers for the entire war.

I would strip some of the armour support, IMO should be max 30 T70 + 36 Su76 (i.e. a light Tank Bat and a SP Bat), or some other AFV combination. One can also lose all the 50mm mortars (or let them run down to 1) since the shouldn't show up after 42 and reduce the number of guns. The current number of 76mm and 122mm only showed up from 43 onward.

How to balance things is a good question. IME it's easier to do that via Proficiency and Supply.

[SMK-at-work]

The number of rifle squads in Russian RD's in the original FITE was set low to ensure that replacements got spread around relatively evenly rather than some units getting almost full numbers while others struggled.

Russian Shtat's (TOE's) after 1941 were never up to the strength at Barbarossa - IIRC the number of men in a division at "full" strength dropped from 16,000 to about 11,000, and that was rarely reached.

There's probably a really old thread about it here already if the archives go back far enough, 'cos it's been noticed several times!

[sPzAbt653]

There's probably a really old thread about it here already if the archives go back far enough

I remember that too, thanks SMK. It also reminds me about something with the number of tanks, to offset the lack of tank regiments. It usually comes back to whatever may appear to be off in one area was done to offset or balance something else. Also, rifle squads of different countries had different values, but in the equipment file used they all have the same value, so there are some differences from historical numbers.

I'll still consider making a late and early Auf battalion, or a Krad first, to be replaced by an Auf, because we have that ability that the original file didn't.

[larryfulkerson]

Shazman found that FITE has a problem (?) in the events where 10 points are subtracted from supply and only 5 are subsequently added later so that there's 5 points missing until the end of the game and I looked at the Directive 21 events and found the same problem.

Event: 275, German Transportation collapses Due To Heavy Rain Sup -10
Trigger turn: 31 (October 5th, 1941).
Effect: Supply 2- (Axis).
Value: 10.
 
Event: 283, German Supply Efficiency Increases Due To Frozen Ground
Trigger turn: 43 (November 16th, 1941).
Effect: Supply 2+ (Axis).
Value: 5.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

The number of rifle squads in Russian RD's in the original FITE was set low to ensure that replacements got spread around relatively evenly rather than some units getting almost full numbers while others struggled.

Russian Shtat's (TOE's) after 1941 were never up to the strength at Barbarossa - IIRC the number of men in a division at "full" strength dropped from 16,000 to about 11,000, and that was rarely reached.

There's probably a really old thread about it here already if the archives go back far enough, 'cos it's been noticed several times!

Thanks. That makes sense. The 11000 was by late 44 early 45 when the mini battalions were formalized though it's reasonable to assume that this was de facto strength some time earlier.

One thing I would like to point out is that Human and PO differ in some important areas, namely flank security and concentration. At least IM (Russian War) experience the PO tended to concentrate on 3-4 axis's and throw everything in there, while being content with leaving a relatively thin line in other areas. As a German in mid game this is convenient. If you can husband your strength, you tend to be able to do a Fall Blau in the 42,43 summers, forcing a breakthrough in a quiet area because the PO can't recognize the fact that his units there are insufficient. A human would be able to forsee this and build up local reserves with additional units. Giving the PO units which can fill up with sufficient time mitigates this weakness by making these quiet areas stronger the longer they are left alone. At the same time the PO still has plenty of strength to throw at its chosen attack axis's. So what seemed sensible in FITE vs a human might be less so when taking into account PO idiosyncrasies.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

There's probably a really old thread about it here already if the archives go back far enough

I remember that too, thanks SMK. It also reminds me about something with the number of tanks, to offset the lack of tank regiments. It usually comes back to whatever may appear to be off in one area was done to offset or balance something else. Also, rifle squads of different countries had different values, but in the equipment file used they all have the same value, so there are some differences from historical numbers.

I'll still consider making a late and early Auf battalion, or a Krad first, to be replaced by an Auf, because we have that ability that the original file didn't.

Fair enough.

Here are some good links for OOB/TOE information.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/inh ... erungH.htm (with detailed unit histories but in German)

[sPzAbt653]

So what seemed sensible in FITE vs a human might be less so when taking into account PO idiosyncrasies.

That's why we have 10-15 guys playtesting, so we can get a bunch of looks at different tactics and strategies, and PO deficiencies in what areas. We're making adjustments as we go. I'll take a second to thank everybody again for putting in their time on this.

[sPzAbt653]

and I looked at the Directive 21 events and found the same problem.

The overall effect is that the Axis start at 30, this drops during the first mud and winter, and they recover to 25, never again reaching the at start base supply level. No problem.

[SMK-at-work]

MechFO by July 1942 the full strength of a RD was only 10,300 men & in December 42 it was reduced to 9435 and July 43 to 9380.  It was increased in Dec 44 to 11706 and June 45 to 11780.

However they couldn't even keep up to this strength in many cases, and there was a range of official TOE's for divisions at lesser strength - 8,000 and 7,000, losing men from platoons, squads, MG companies lost a platoon, mortars lost 1 crew per mortar, etc to get these. (From Zaloga, Red Army Handbook)

IIRC the starting situation was that the average front-line strength at Barbarossa was only 60 or 70% for divisions within 60km of the border, and possibly even less (? from memory) for those in the 2nd echelon up to 100 (?) km. "Stumbling Colossus" has some figures for this that I'm reciting from memory....gotta run....ciao

Edit: Found some figures in Charles Sharpe's volume on Soviet Rifle Divisions raised after 1942 - there were apparently org's down to 1500 men divisions and he gives figures for a 3600 man division - 6 Rifle Battalions, each of 2 companies each of 3 platoons each of 24 men (3 x 7 man squads), plus a HMG company & a mortar company per Regiment and a Divisional SMG company of 44 men. Divisional artillery was rarely reduced - crews & ammo trains would be reduced but the number of guns retained.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

MechFO by July 1942 the full strength of a RD was only 10,300 men & in December 42 it was reduced to 9435 and July 43 to 9380.  It was increased in Dec 44 to 11706 and June 45 to 11780.

However they couldn't even keep up to this strength in many cases, and there was a range of official TOE's for divisions at lesser strength - 8,000 and 7,000, losing men from platoons, squads, MG companies lost a platoon, mortars lost 1 crew per mortar, etc to get these. (From Zaloga, Red Army Handbook)

IIRC the starting situation was that the average front-line strength at Barbarossa was only 60 or 70% for divisions within 60km of the border, and possibly even less (? from memory) for those in the 2nd echelon up to 100 (?) km. "Stumbling Colossus" has some figures for this that I'm reciting from memory....gotta run....ciao

Edit: Found some figures in Charles Sharpe's volume on Soviet Rifle Divisions raised after 1942 - there were apparently org's down to 1500 men divisions and he gives figures for a 3600 man division - 6 Rifle Battalions, each of 2 companies each of 3 platoons each of 24 men (3 x 7 man squads), plus a HMG company & a mortar company per Regiment and a Divisional SMG company of 44 men. Divisional artillery was rarely reduced - crews & ammo trains would be reduced but the number of guns retained.

In the beginning, every platoon was missing at least 1-2 Squads, even in the frontline units, so 60-70% sounds reasonable.

As I understand it, the reduced TOE's you mention were for fielded units which were progressively reorganized as they suffered losses, since in the Soviet system losses normally weren't replaced. Instead new "full" strength Divisions were organised and then allowed to be ground down. So, while the reduced tables show what a Division had after different periods of combat, it wasn't representative of what a Division started out with.

Stronger "normal" Divisions with low (very low?) replacement priority probably comes closest in game terms.

Anyway I see the rationale now for the current system.


Any interest in revised LW, Rumanian, Italian TOE's?

[sPzAbt653]

Stronger "normal" Divisions with low (very low?) replacement priority probably comes closest in game terms.

That's a possibility of interest. It could mean that the slightly lower amount of replacements going to existing divisions would raise the probability that more divisions waiting in the reconstitution que will get enough to arrive. Possibly maybe.

Any interest in revised LW, Rumanian, Italian TOE's?

I'm still looking into an early and late recon element for the motor/panzer divisions, I think that should be done. But we'll certainly take a look at anything that is felt to be of importance.

[SMK-at-work]

As I understand it, the reduced TOE's you mention were for fielded units which were progressively reorganized as they suffered losses,

Yep

since in the Soviet system losses normally weren't replaced. Instead new "full" strength Divisions were organised and then allowed to be ground down. So, while the reduced tables show what a Division had after different periods of combat, it wasn't representative of what a Division started out with.

but not the rest of it.  Replacements were often given - especially shortly before offensives.  Certainly some units were shattered/captured or destroyed in combat and disbanded with new ones of the same number raised afterwards....but that's not quite the same as being allowed to be worn down to nothing.  IIRC the most times a division was "raised" in this manner was 4 or 5 - I did look it up a few months ago for some strange reason!!

A lot of divisions were renamed as Guards and so replacement divisions with the same number would be raised - but they were often raised with a reduced manning level and filled out as they got closer to the front.

If you want lots of detail Sharp's series lists every Brigade+ formation raised - including all the replacement divisions sometimes including comments about the starting strengths.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

As I understand it, the reduced TOE's you mention were for fielded units which were progressively reorganized as they suffered losses,

Yep

since in the Soviet system losses normally weren't replaced. Instead new "full" strength Divisions were organised and then allowed to be ground down. So, while the reduced tables show what a Division had after different periods of combat, it wasn't representative of what a Division started out with.

but not the rest of it.  Replacements were often given - especially shortly before offensives.  Certainly some units were shattered/captured or destroyed in combat and disbanded with new ones of the same number raised afterwards....but that's not quite the same as being allowed to be worn down to nothing.  IIRC the most times a division was "raised" in this manner was 4 or 5 - I did look it up a few months ago for some strange reason!!

A lot of divisions were renamed as Guards and so replacement divisions with the same number would be raised - but they were often raised with a reduced manning level and filled out as they got closer to the front.

If you want lots of detail Sharp's series lists every Brigade+ formation raised - including all the replacement divisions sometimes including comments about the starting strengths.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

I don't know if the numbering is instructive per se. Of more interest would be the timeline. If they were busy standing up new divisions while giving 3000-4000 TOE's to depleted ones, that I think would support the view that they would rather put up new Divisions than reinforce existing ones. Of course one could say the same of the Germans, but to a lesser degree.

[MechFO]

I was looking at the Pz Brigades and it is interesting that Pz Div 25 seemed to act as a parent Division to several Brigades, namely 103, 107-109. Further, 500-600 of Feldherrenhalle were the basis for 106 and 110, and the 18th PzGren gave 1000 men to 105. It seems nearly all equipment was newly supplied so it doesn't make sense to withdraw the parent units, but it might make sense to set the PzBrigades to non reconstituting. As far as I can see nearly all of them were used to reinforce Pz or Pz Gren Divisions after being in action for a very short time. As such the player would have the flexibility to use them as additional replacements or to plug a hole, depending on his priorities.



Also regarding the Rumanian Artillery I found this:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/organizare/?article=36

The army (1st, 3rd and 4th Army) artillery consisted in several independent horse-drawn artillery battalions. Half were equipped with old guns and the other half with modern ones: 150 mm Skoda model 1934 and 105 mm Schneider model 1913. Each army also had an independent motorized AT battalion armed with 47 mm Schneider model 1936/40 towed by Malaxa UE light armoured tracked vehicle. Because the 3rd Army was involved in mechanized operations it also had the 4th Motorized Heavy Artillery Regiment and the 1st and 11th Heavy Fortification Artillery Regiment (the last two only in 1941).

The corps (7 corps, Mountain and Cavalry Corps) artillery was formed from a motorized heavy artillery regiment, which had one battalion equipped with 12 105mm Schneider model 1936 and another one with 12 150mm Skoda model 1934. There were 8 such regiments (1st-8th). They were considered some of the best units of the Romanian Army. These regiments were comparable in terms of firepower and mobility with German regiments. Each corps also had an independent motorized heavy artillery battalion.

Right now the Army Art units are missing a Regiment just counting the Corps level Art units. Add in another Regiment per Army for the Army level Art units and one gets:

3rd Army: 96 150mm and 60 105mm (3 Corps Regs, 3 Corps Hvy Bats, 1 Mot. Hvy Reg and approx 1 Army Reg)

4 Army : 84 150mm and 48 105mm (3 Corps Regs, 3 Corps Hvy Bats and approx 1 Army Reg)

1st Army: 60 150mm and 36 105mm (2 Corps Regs, 2 Corps Hvy Bats and approx 1 Army Reg)

[sPzAbt653]

As such the player would have the flexibility to use them as additional replacements or to plug a hole.

There is a Theater Option that does just that.

[wmorris]

I have, sadly, lost my live opponent to relocation.

Would some kind soul consider sending me the current version of the PO-enabled scenario? My address:wmorrisunc80(amphora) bellsouth(singledot) net

I have intermittently returned to attempts to extensively rework the original FITE, and found myself in agreement with a lot in the "Buzz FITE" thread. There are two important matters I have not seen satisfyingly resolved. One was the strength of AAA versus aircraft; has there been a consensus on this?

The other is the much-addressed and (in a scenario of this scale) important lack of a volume-based supply system. I have favored giving each player offensive options that improved supply locally rather than improving shock globally. It has been painful in execution because I'm a noob at editing, but seems better than a shock advantage that lets a player attack along the front from Murmansk to Grozny.

Im also curious about an appropriate balance of attrition divider and the # of combat rounds. Has there been a thread on this?

Many thanks

[larryfulkerson]

Hey WMorris:  I sent a copy of Directive 21 to you.  Did you get it yet?

Also, I wouldn't print out my email address "in the clear" like you did above since there are email adress bots out crawling the web looking for email adresses to send spam to. Rather, you could could do something like this: larryfulkerson2002(at)yahoo(dot)com

[wmorris]

Got it, Thanks very much for the file and the warning; imprudent of me.

[sPzAbt653]

the strength of AAA versus aircraft

I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically, but there has been some discussion about this. I believe it is adjusted in the next patch.

lack of a volume-based supply system

In D21 supply has been adjusted, and supply units are used to reflect local supply stockpiles.

an appropriate balance of attrition divider and the # of combat rounds

Since both of those values are specifically significant to each individual scenario, a lot of consideration has been given them. Playtesting is the only way to verify their effects. It seems that we are happy with the current settings of 6 for the AD and 3 for the MRPB.