War in the East Q&A

[Hard Sarge]

That's it period.

now

[Muzrub]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison

The political rating effects the chance a leader will be dismissed due to poor combat performance and the chance a leader will get promoted. It can cost more administrative points to voluntarily dismiss a leader with a high political rating. It also costs additional administrative points (Axis only) to transfer units from one leader's command to another.

Here's your comparison:

Manstein: 12, 5, 6, 9, 8, 9, 1, 6

Zhukov: 28, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 1, 7

BTW, remember that Manstein begins the game as a corps commander. In later war scenarios he might be given different ratings.

So the rating of a commander depends on how you use him in combat?

Does that mean that political points would scale up and down?
If that is the case does that mean that there would be: eg A fuhrer order (commander)- take this city or hold (Kharkov) or (the commander) drop points politically- maybe be dismissed?

If that is right a (very poor) player could kill the career of a Zhukov or Guderian?

Does this not step outside of the historical boundaries and the game philosophy of play with what you got?
Its a shame commander ratings can be tweaked, but production cant.

[Muzrub]

Another question-

If a korps is surrounded for sometime- and fuel supplies are wiped out, or close to it.

But!

A breakout at the last minute saves the Korps- does that Korps retain its heavy weapons and vehicles?

Or are they lost in total, or by percentage?

Also if a Korps wins the ground in battle, will they have a greater percentage of repaired vehicles?
Or will winning the ground not effect damaged vehicles and repair?

As many know winning the ground allowed for the repair of damaged vehicles, and the scavenging of spare parts.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison

The political rating effects the chance a leader will be dismissed due to poor combat performance and the chance a leader will get promoted. It can cost more administrative points to voluntarily dismiss a leader with a high political rating. It also costs additional administrative points (Axis only) to transfer units from one leader's command to another.

Here's your comparison:

Manstein: 12, 5, 6, 9, 8, 9, 1, 6

Zhukov: 28, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 1, 7

BTW, remember that Manstein begins the game as a corps commander. In later war scenarios he might be given different ratings.

So the rating of a commander depends on how you use him in combat?


No, what I meant is that a scenario designer building a later war scenario may want to adjust leader ratings to reflect the current rank or other ratings over time. For example, Manstein was historically promoted to field marshall after the fall of Sevastopol so if you were designing a scenario for the Stalingrad counteroffensive (Operation Uranus) you would want to change Manstein's rank.


Does that mean that political points would scale up and down?


No, not in a ongoing game but like rank, scenario designers might want to adjust the initial political rating which is an average of a leader's entire length of service. Using Manstein again as an example, his political rating in a scenario designed for 1944 might be lower than his wartime average to reflect that Hitler was losing faith in him by then.


If that is the case does that mean that there would be: eg A fuhrer order (commander)- take this city or hold (Kharkov) or (the commander) drop points politically- maybe be dismissed?


No, auto dismissal only results from losing lots of battles.


If that is right a (very poor) player could kill the career of a Zhukov or Guderian?


It would be very difficult to loose any German leader prior to the Soviet winter offensive of 41-42. The German army is just too good. As for Zhukov, if you were to commit him prematurely before the conditions on the ground were somewhat stabilized you could get him sacked but the probability is very low. Unlike the old War In Russia, it's actually quite hard to get fired in this game.


Does this not step outside of the historical boundaries and the game philosophy of play with what you got?
Its a shame commander ratings can be tweaked, but production cant.


Hopefully my answers above have clarified how leaders work and shown that the system is consistent with the game's historical orientation. As you can see, scenario designers, not players, are doing the tweaking.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

Another question-

If a korps is surrounded for sometime- and fuel supplies are wiped out, or close to it.

But!

A breakout at the last minute saves the Korps- does that Korps retain its heavy weapons and vehicles?

Or are they lost in total, or by percentage?

Also if a Korps wins the ground in battle, will they have a greater percentage of repaired vehicles?
Or will winning the ground not effect damaged vehicles and repair?

As many know winning the ground allowed for the repair of damaged vehicles, and the scavenging of spare parts.

An isolated unit will have whatever is left when supply is restored. Units that are forced to retreat loose a large percentage of their damaged equipment so holding ground or advancing by default means you have less equipment losses.

[hank]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Thanks for the answer, looks a good solution
Another question, what about Soviet Tank Corps and Mech Corps, how are they represented, ax single units or as agregate of several units?

Tank and Mechanized corps are "built" by combining tank and mechanized/motorized brigades. You can also break them back down into brigades.

The major difference between tank & mechanized corps versus rifle and cavalry corps is that that tank/mech corps have unique TOEs they follow while rifle/cavalry corps are simply the sum of three divisions. Therefore while you can form a tank corps from three tank brigades, the TOE of a tank corps is not the same as the TOE of a tank brigade times three (i.e. tank corps contain combat elements not found in tank brigades).

This was touched on in the Historical Accuracy thread. With this post I'm wondering two things: How accurate is the make-up of Divisions in regards to the Regiments and lower support units they actually included?

I used this example: the 2nd Pz Div (1943) was composed of the 3rd Pz Reg, 2nd PzGr Reg, 304 PzGr Reg, 74th Pz Arty, 2nd Motorcycle, 5th Pz Recce, 38th TD, 38th Pz Eng, and the 38th Pz Signal battalion.

Will I see somewhere these sub-units listed when reviewing how the 2nd Pz Div is structured?

And to repeat the question from that other thread; Can Div's be broke down into individual sub-units? And will they break down into their historical sub-units or into "hybrid" units (aka combined arms units like TOAW does)?

Thanks for the line of communications on this very interesting game

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: hank

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Thanks for the answer, looks a good solution
Another question, what about Soviet Tank Corps and Mech Corps, how are they represented, ax single units or as agregate of several units?

Tank and Mechanized corps are "built" by combining tank and mechanized/motorized brigades. You can also break them back down into brigades.

The major difference between tank & mechanized corps versus rifle and cavalry corps is that that tank/mech corps have unique TOEs they follow while rifle/cavalry corps are simply the sum of three divisions. Therefore while you can form a tank corps from three tank brigades, the TOE of a tank corps is not the same as the TOE of a tank brigade times three (i.e. tank corps contain combat elements not found in tank brigades).

This was touched on in the Historical Accuracy thread. With this post I'm wondering two things: How accurate is the make-up of Divisions in regards to the Regiments and lower support units they actually included?

I used this example: the 2nd Pz Div (1943) was composed of the 3rd Pz Reg, 2nd PzGr Reg, 304 PzGr Reg, 74th Pz Arty, 2nd Motorcycle, 5th Pz Recce, 38th TD, 38th Pz Eng, and the 38th Pz Signal battalion.

Will I see somewhere these sub-units listed when reviewing how the 2nd Pz Div is structured?

And to repeat the question from that other thread; Can Div's be broke down into individual sub-units? And will they break down into their historical sub-units or into "hybrid" units (aka combined arms units like TOAW does)?

Thanks for the line of communications on this very interesting game

The organizational structure of a division does not go down to the regiment/battalion level. For example a panzer division would have x number of light tanks, x number of medium tanks, etc. not a panzer regiment containing panzer battalions who in turn contain panzer companies. When you break down a division, the division is divided to 3 equal parts not historically distinct elements.

[Hard Sarge]

as stated, you will have the stuff the units had, not the sub units

the OOB for 41, I was very impressed with the detail of the Panzer Div's, almost every one, was the same as all of the info I had on them (differences would be AFV models that are not in the game, so are used as something else)

so the stuff is there, just not who controlled it

[Hard Sarge]

And to repeat the question from that other thread; Can Div's be broke down into individual sub-units? And will they break down into their historical sub-units or into "hybrid" units (aka combined arms units like TOAW does)?

it would be more of a Hybrid, so it will be close to a 1/3 of the parent unit

[itsjustme]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Lascar

ORIGINAL: jaw




I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.

I also do that with Russian campaign games that don't have such a rule hard coded.

If there are not stacking restriction are there at least combat penalties when various axis nationalities attack together i.e. Romanians and Germans or other such combinations?

There are combat penalties whenever units of different corps attack together but no penalty per se for being a different nationality at present.

Wait wait wait. You mean we can do something ahistorical? That can't be right, I thought this was a pure historical simulation. Someone please put code in which requires the use of SS divisions for partisan hunting..... [8|]

[Hard Sarge]

Lol, I get called a Nazi for wanting to use Security Troops to hunt Partisans, hate to see what your going to get called

[hank]

Thanks for the quick reply. So it will break down similar to the way TOAW Divisional Level scenarios work where unit division is allowed.

Thanks again

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

1) What are the statistics used in the game for combat units? Could you post some examples?
2) How are those statistics related to TOEs? Could you give us an example? I would love to take a look to a Luftwaffe Field Division!

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: itsjustme

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Lascar



I also do that with Russian campaign games that don't have such a rule hard coded.

If there are not stacking restriction are there at least combat penalties when various axis nationalities attack together i.e. Romanians and Germans or other such combinations?

There are combat penalties whenever units of different corps attack together but no penalty per se for being a different nationality at present.

Wait wait wait. You mean we can do something ahistorical? That can't be right, I thought this was a pure historical simulation. Someone please put code in which requires the use of SS divisions for partisan hunting..... [8|]

To elaborate, you can't attach a division form one nationality to a corps of another nationality (except for Germans) so units of different nationalities will almost always be attacking from different corps if participating in the same attack and be penalized. Only if you went through the trouble to attach units from two different nationalities to the same German corps (and I never tried this so I can't say it works) could you get around the penalty but that would be an awful lot of work re-organizing units that are marginal to begin with.

There is no historical justification for requiring SS divisions to hunt partisans and most of the SS operations against partisans that did occur were in the Balkans (not covered in the game) not on the Eastern Front. In the game those SS divisions that were off in the Balkans hunting partisans will not be present on the Eastern Front at that time.

But as a player you are free to hunt partisans with whatever divisions are at your disposal. An historical game doesn't mean you have to follow history just that you are bound by it.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Lol, I get called a Nazi for wanting to use Security Troops to hunt Partisans, hate to see what your going to get called

Calm down please! I was not referring you to personally and the use of the term Nazis was a poor choice of word that I have already apologized for. My point was that the German use of high quality troops (the SS not security divisions) for anti-partisan operations is inefficient in game terms and not something a rational game player would do.

Again, I apologize for not having worded those comments more clearly.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

1) What are the statistics used in the game for combat units? Could you post some examples?
2) How are those statistics related to TOEs? Could you give us an example? I would love to take a look to a Luftwaffe Field Division!

By "statistics" are you referring to the composition of a unit (in this case a Luftwaffe field division) or the firepower values of a particular weapon (e.g. a 105mm howitzer)?

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: jaw




By "statistics" are you referring to the composition of a unit (in this case a Luftwaffe field division) or the firepower values of a particular weapon (e.g. a 105mm howitzer)?

I was thinking about the data displayed to the player. I am not sure how it is done, is it like TOAW, in which TOE determines the combat power of any unit? To sum up, how is combat power of the unit claculated for combat resolution and what is presented to the player in numbers?

[Shupov]

Are mortars considered as artillery or as part of a unit's intrinsic firepower? 

[Hard Sarge]

Mortars are seen and counted as Guns

[PyleDriver]

50mm mortars arn't counted as artillery, 81mm and 120mm are...