Indipendent Units

[vinnie71]

In the product page there is indicated that there will be indipendent battalions etc at Corps and Army level which could be attached to divisions. I've got several questions in this regard, so bear with me[:)]

a) Are these represented on the battlefield by counters or just equipment found in Corps/Army counters?

b) Once these units are joined to specific divisions, are they permanently joined or could these be reclaimed by Corps/Army HQs? This would be especially important in defensive fighting.

c) Could these units be brought together to form battlegroups?

d) What sort of units are we talking about here? I imagine something like SP, artillery, engineer units - anything else?

Tnx in advance!

[elmo3]

They are called support units in WitE.

a) they are not units on the map but they are battalions and soviet arty regiments and the game does track experience, equipment, morale, etc just like other units.

b) they are not permanently assigned.

c) No battlegroups or kampfgruppes are formed from support units.

d) construction (helps with fortress building and rail repair) and flak units are two others I can think of offhand.

In this shot you can see 18 support units currently attached to XII Corps.

[Terminus]

Separate armour battalions as well, like flame tanks and assault guns.

[critter]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

They are called support units in WitE.

a) they are not units on the map but they are battalions and soviet arty regiments and the game does track experience, equipment, morale, etc just like other units.

b) they are not permanently assigned.

c) No battlegroups or kampfgruppes are formed from support units.

d) construction (helps with fortress building and rail repair) and flak units are two others I can think of offhand.

In this shot you can see 18 support units currently attached to XII Corps.

So how do they work in combat? If not assigned how does a player know where they're at?

[freeboy]

interesting... Would loive to see an attack and defense breakout of how the game, in detail, handles the rounds of combat, or whatever
Thanks

[elmo3]

If a leader passes an initiative check their support units can be assigned to attack or defend.  Range from the HQ to the battle matters but I forget the specifics right now.  Max of 5 support units can participate in any one battle IIRC.  Support units are always assigned to either an HQ or a combat unit and that assignment can be changed.

[PyleDriver]

Btw good response Lee, also the player can lock these units into HQ's so the AI doesn't move them around. It costs an AP (admin point) to transfer them. I like control of where there at. I like every corps to have a little of each. When I play the 41 game I move all my big guns (2 Karl Bat, 600mm, and 3 Hvy Art Bat, 355mm, 305 mm) to 18th army for the later assalt on Leningrad. So this game can go as deep as you want, or let the AI help you as you go...

[Monkeys Brain]

How do you calculate this:

ZIEMKE - MOSCOW TO STALINGRAD

PAGE 139

"At the beginning of the 1941-1942 winter campaign, which includes the Moscow counteroffensive (and perhaps also the efforts at Rostov and Tikhvin) the Stavka had total reserves of 123 divisions, 31 brigade, and 16 independent regiments. During campaign it created or rebuilt 128 divisions, 158 brigades, 209 independent regiments.
Of the total of 665 units (251 divisions, 189 brigades, and 225 independent regiments, Stavka COMMITED ONLY 181 (99 divisions, 82 brigadesm and NO INEPENDENT REGIMENTS!!!) during winter campaign."

Now what this means?
is this game historically accurate or researched enough?

I see that many German units will not be included in the game and would not want to see all Soviet units included which will give Soviets enormous superiority.

And we see that many Soviet units were not even commited to combat!

Maybe I am wrong or don't understand this but would want as much as possible historical accuracy, not some mumbo jumbo. Maybe even developers can tell us source of their historical research.


Mario

[Montbrun]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

How do you calculate this:

ZIEMKE - MOSCOW TO STALINGRAD

PAGE 139

"At the beginning of the 1941-1942 winter campaign, which includes the Moscow counteroffensive (and perhaps also the efforts at Rostov and Tikhvin) the Stavka had total reserves of 123 divisions, 31 brigade, and 16 independent regiments. During campaign it created or rebuilt 128 divisions, 158 brigades, 209 independent regiments.
Of the total of 665 units (251 divisions, 189 brigades, and 225 independent regiments, Stavka COMMITED ONLY 181 (99 divisions, 82 brigadesm and NO INEPENDENT REGIMENTS!!!) during winter campaign."

Now what this means?
is this game historically accurate or researched enough?

I see that many German units will not be included in the game and would not want to see all Soviet units included which will give Soviets enormous superiority.

And we see that many Soviet units were not even commited to combat!

Maybe I am wrong or don't understand this but would want as much as possible historical accuracy, not some mumbo jumbo. Maybe even developers can tell us source of their historical research.


Mario

This gives you an idea of all of the independent units attached to the German forces at the start of Barbarossa:

German Barbarossa OoB

[Monkeys Brain]

Thanks Brad. Interesting...

I found this when I searched about 12th German Army:

http://books.google.hr/books?id=QNftdEh ... my&f=false

interesting...

[elmo3]

As has been stated before we are striving for historical accuracy since obviously this is a historical game.  However once a scenario starts it can and and will deviate from strictly historical results.  I'm guessing an extensive bibliography of sources will be included with the game documentation but we don't have that compiled yet.

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

They are called support units in WitE.

a) they are not units on the map but they are battalions and soviet arty regiments and the game does track experience, equipment, morale, etc just like other units.

b) they are not permanently assigned.

c) No battlegroups or kampfgruppes are formed from support units.

d) construction (helps with fortress building and rail repair) and flak units are two others I can think of offhand.

In this shot you can see 18 support units currently attached to XII Corps.

Taking a good look at the units listed there, we will have quite a cross-section of support units. Therefore it is wise to always keep something back (like artillery) but the others can be assigned to line divisions to prop them up in defence.

Two more questions please[:)]

Will Flak units fire on aircraft only or will they be able to fire on land bound targets (as in real life)? the Germans especially readily made use of their excellent flak units in an anti-tank and support role.

I see that there are construction battalions. Tney were quite numerous in the German army and were usually predominantly made up of second line troops and Hiwis as time moved on. Will they have a role of converting the rail guage as the Germans advance or is this not implemented in the game? (guess it isn't coz it must be difficult to do... but..)

Lastly (sorry a third query came to mind as I typed). Can we see the TO&E of such support units and do they have the same replacement method of other formations?

Thanks again for a game that seems to be coming along fine!


BTW @ Monkeys Brain - what German units are not going to be included in game?

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

As has been stated before we are striving for historical accuracy since obviously this is a historical game.  However once a scenario starts it can and and will deviate from strictly historical results.  I'm guessing an extensive bibliography of sources will be included with the game documentation but we don't have that compiled yet.

OK. I know that it is not easy but expectations are high on this title. And many East Front historians would judge your work hehe

[Monkeys Brain]

BTW @ Monkeys Brain - what German units are not going to be included in game?
---

I stand corrected - not Germans per se but some German allied units will not be in the game. Maybe some strange German formations as well - well they like Russians also did lot's of shuffling and there was also lot's of ad hoc formations or formations that were active only small time at the front and then transferred or dissolved.

Eastern Front is very complex topic and I've been researching that historical time period for years now. I have read many books on Eastern Front.

This game could also bring creativity in historical research hehe. Or bring some new issues that has been masked by some false informations (which happened mainly on Soviet side).

If German side would be too much simplified and many units put out, I don't know... Because even with real OOB Germans many times struggled and didn't have ANY reserves at all! (AGN for instance, AGC sometimes etc...). Some compromise would have to be found by designers.

I like the chrome in Eastern Front scenarios - look at Daniel McBride Drang Nach Osten, or Fite or elsewhere - the creativity of designers can shine there... that's why I don't like the notion when designers say "we ommited this or that unit". Hello! Game is developing for so many years and then it may be with lesser historical accuracy than TOAW scenarios.

For example for TO&E and OOB of combatants in World War I scenario, Daniel Mc Bride used book http://www.flipkart.com/world-war-data- ... g0x3f2rbqc

It's not cheap but it is good, I have a copy as well.

Research is not cheap and certanly take time and you need sometimes to be very creative with partial data.


Mario

[vinnie71]

The basic problem with the German warmachine in the East (indeed wherever its was) was that the Germans made extensive use of battlegroups. These are impossible to implement unless each division is broken down in its battalion components, something which is not going to happen in this game. A good example is the old Avalon Hill title Stalingrad where it was pretty easy to create combined arms battlegroups suited to your needs. Obviously, it covered a really small part of the eastern front...

A good approximation is this idea of having indipendent units that can be attached to divisions. This means that for example in defence or attack, a particular division can be reinforced in order reach your goals. Its important to give a level of flexibility to the player...

True some units like Cossacks or the Brandenburgers (which I asked about) won't make it in the game. But when you think of it, the bulk of such formations would have been little more than the support units that are the topic of this thread, and therefore won't make such a big difference. A few Cossack regiments, Brandenburg battalions, Turkoman or whatnot battalions might be implemented as these units at best, considering the scale of the game.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

The basic problem with the German warmachine in the East (indeed wherever its was) was that the Germans made extensive use of battlegroups. These are impossible to implement unless each division is broken down in its battalion components, something which is not going to happen in this game. A good example is the old Avalon Hill title Stalingrad where it was pretty easy to create combined arms battlegroups suited to your needs. Obviously, it covered a really small part of the eastern front...

A good approximation is this idea of having indipendent units that can be attached to divisions. This means that for example in defence or attack, a particular division can be reinforced in order reach your goals. Its important to give a level of flexibility to the player...

True some units like Cossacks or the Brandenburgers (which I asked about) won't make it in the game. But when you think of it, the bulk of such formations would have been little more than the support units that are the topic of this thread, and therefore won't make such a big difference. A few Cossack regiments, Brandenburg battalions, Turkoman or whatnot battalions might be implemented as these units at best, considering the scale of the game.

OK, I may agree with you. But attention to details is always welcome in this type of games.

Brandenburgers captured bridge at Daugavpils for Manstein and at Luga later I think, etc... which was of some strategical importance. I agree with you that maybe this all could be irrelevant for big picture and that after all players will have enough units to push around in any case. [:D]

But we wargamers are like that... do you remember all those discussions of gun on KV-1 in Close Combat III etc...? hehe

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Two more questions please[:)]

Will Flak units fire on aircraft only or will they be able to fire on land bound targets (as in real life)? the Germans especially readily made use of their excellent flak units in an anti-tank and support role.

I see that there are construction battalions. Tney were quite numerous in the German army and were usually predominantly made up of second line troops and Hiwis as time moved on. Will they have a role of converting the rail guage as the Germans advance or is this not implemented in the game? (guess it isn't coz it must be difficult to do... but..)

Lastly (sorry a third query came to mind as I typed). Can we see the TO&E of such support units and do they have the same replacement method of other formations?

Thanks again for a game that seems to be coming along fine!

...

Not sure about flak as I'm fairly new to the team and the game. In addition to repair/conversion units that the player controls it is possible for the HQ AI to use construction battalions to repair/convert as well. Support unit refit is handled by the AI. And as always - this is alpha so anything you see is subject to change.

[ComradeP]

Independent units could be problematic if not balanced properly, due to the differences between Axis and Soviet doctrine when it comes to support assets.

The Soviets suffered such heavy losses in terms of officers in the early stages of Barbarossa, that is was simply not possible for them to control larger units like full divisions with a plethora of organic support assets.

(All of this assumes paper strength, or theoretical strength)

As a result, in many scenarios in whatever wargame you might be playing, the Soviets often start with a pile of independent units, and pretty weak divisions. Rifle divisions, Guards and regular, were lucky if they had an organic AT battalion, and up to late in the war the majority of them had no real artillery, as that was centralized. In late 1944- 1945, Rifle Divisions with artillery regiments became more common, but artillery was usually all the support they were going to get.

Many of the betatesters are enthusiastic about Guards Mechanized Corps and Guards Tank Corps, but those were really the only roughly division sized Soviet formations that had any real organic support assets.

Moreover, a Guards Mechanized Corps was weak in tanks and a Tank Corps was weak in infantry. Some Tank Corps had a whopping 3 tank brigades AND 3 SU regiments, but only a single infantry brigade. If you think a Panzer division is weak on infantry, you should check out a Soviet Tank Corps, especially a mostly non-Guard formation. A Guards Mechanized Corps had about 3 brigades worth of mechanized infantry, which is nice, but often only a single brigade of tanks, or maybe a regular and a heavy tank brigade, as well as a SU regiment.

Those Guards Mechanized and Tank Corps generally included two or three artillery regiments (regular and rocket) and some AA. As Soviet armoured cars were generally rubbish, they had motorcycle recon units.

All other formations depended on their Army support assets, which was usually something between 4 and 8 artillery regiments and possible a few tank brigades.

For veterans of the Decisive Battles series by SSG or the later Battlefront and Kharkov:DotD, or veterans of other games featuring divisional integrity, masses of Soviet independent formations are usually a welcome sight, as they don't get a divisional integrity bonus and thus lose strength rapidly.

German infantry divisions had divisional AT assets, towed early on, Hetzers or StuG's later, an artillery regiment, motorcycle recon or foot/bicycle recon and a pioneer battalion (on foot or motorized). Panzer divisions had a regiment worth of tanks, motorized pioneers, and armoured recon. Panzer divisions might have a regular, (partially) self-propelled artillery regiment and a rocket artillery regiment.

German Corps usually had one or two independent artillery regiments, and possibly independent assault, tank or infantry battalions or regiments.

If the Germans are forced to fight with their regular theoretical divisional strength, Guards Tank and Mechanized Corps will always have superior firepower, as they can "glue" a tremendous amount of units together to form the unit. A Panzer division at full strength should be able to handle a Guards Mechanized Corps, but a full strength Guards Tank Corps would be tough to handle. If the Germans can create 3 tank battalion Panzer divisions, with an AT and StuG battalion, the Germans might stand a chance, especially SS formations.

The main problem is that, historically, the Soviets committed only a fraction of their total forces to the front. As Monkeys Brain quotes from Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East (excellent book by the way), the Soviets left a lot of units in the rear areas, not at the front. As people can also read in Moscow to Stalingrad, one of the reasons why the various operations of what was initially known as Fall Blau worked was that roughly half of the Soviet strength below the AGN sector was concentrated around Moscow, as Stalin was afraid the forces there would attack Moscow.

The dismal failure of the Soviet spring and summer offensives only strengthened that belief, especially the failure of the Rzhev-Vyazma Strategic Offensive Operation and the Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive Operation, which ended in yet another encirclement of Soviet forces close to Moscow.

If the Soviet player doesn't make Stalin's mistakes, and concentrates forces, the Axis will face an avalanche of forces they can't possibly stop.

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Independent units could be problematic if not balanced properly, due to the differences between Axis and Soviet doctrine when it comes to support assets.

The Soviets suffered such heavy losses in terms of officers in the early stages of Barbarossa, that is was simply not possible for them to control larger units like full divisions with a plethora of organic support assets.

(All of this assumes paper strength, or theoretical strength)

As a result, in many scenarios in whatever wargame you might be playing, the Soviets often start with a pile of independent units, and pretty weak divisions. Rifle divisions, Guards and regular, were lucky if they had an organic AT battalion, and up to late in the war the majority of them had no real artillery, as that was centralized. In late 1944- 1945, Rifle Divisions with artillery regiments became more common, but artillery was usually all the support they were going to get.

Many of the betatesters are enthusiastic about Guards Mechanized Corps and Guards Tank Corps, but those were really the only roughly division sized Soviet formations that had any real organic support assets.

Moreover, a Guards Mechanized Corps was weak in tanks and a Tank Corps was weak in infantry. Some Tank Corps had a whopping 3 tank brigades AND 3 SU regiments, but only a single infantry brigade. If you think a Panzer division is weak on infantry, you should check out a Soviet tank corps, especially a mostly non-Guard formation. A Guards Mechanized Corps had about 3 brigades worth of mechanized infantry, which is nice, but often only a single brigade of tanks, or maybe a regular and a heavy tank brigade, as well as a SU regiment.

Those Guards Mechanized and Tank Corps generally included two or three artillery regiments (regular and rocket) and some AA. As Soviet armoured cars were generally rubbish, they had motorcycle recon units.

All other formations depended on their Army support assets, which was usually something between 4 and 8 artillery regiments and possible a few tank brigades.

For veterans of the Decisive Battles series by SSG or the later Battlefront and Kharkov:DotD, or veterans of other games featuring divisional integrity, masses of Soviet independent formations are usually a welcome sight, as they don't get a divisional integrity bonus and thus lose strength rapidly.

German infantry divisions had divisional AT assets, towed early on, Hetzers or StuG's later, an artillery regiment, motorcycle recon or foot/bicycle recon and a pioneer battalion (on foot or motorized). Panzer divisions had a regiment worth of tanks, motorized pioneers, and armoured recon. Panzer regiments might have a regular, (partially) self-propelled artillery regiment and a rocket artillery regiment.

German Corps usually had one or two independent artillery regiments, and possibly independent assault, tank or infantry battalions or regiments.

If the Germans are forced to fight with their regular theoretical divisional strength, Guards Tank and Mechanized Corps will always have superior firepower, as they can "glue" a tremendous amount of units together to form the unit. A Panzer division at full strength should be able to handle a Guards Mechanized Corps, but a full strength Guards Tank Corps would be tough to handle. If the Germans can create 3 tank battalion Panzer divisions, with an AT and StuG battalion, the Germans might stand a chance, especially SS formations.

The main problem is that, historically, the Soviets committed only a fraction of their total forces to the front. As Monkeys Brain quotes from Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East (excellent book by the way), the Soviets left a lot of units in the rear areas, not at the front. As people can also read in Moscow to Stalingrad, one of the reasons why the various operations of what was initially known as Fall Blau worked was that roughly half of the Soviet strength below the AGN sector was concentrated around Moscow, as Stalin was afraid the forces there would attack Moscow.

The dismal failure of the Soviet spring and summer offensives only strengthened that belief, especially the failure of the Rzhev-Vyazma Strategic Offensive Operation and the Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive Operation, which ended in yet another encirclement of Soviet forces close to Moscow.

If the Soviet player doesn't make Stalin's mistakes, and concentrates forces, the Axis will face an avalanche of forces they can't possibly stop.

Exactly. If the game simulates actual Soviet capabilities in terms of firepower and transport and other tangibles and simulates their command problems to the extent that the Soviet player can say, rescue enough good commanders early on to have a good commander for every army (with the support units at the army level, as was done very often in Soviet practice), then there is a significant chance that the Soviets will get rolling west much earlier than they did historically. Of course, since historically the Germans obliterated most of the Soviet army early on, its going to be hard to do much about simulating the tangibly enormous Soviet tangible assets since so much of the simulation work has to go into making sure the intangibles of German command capabilities have a huge impact. The tricky (and interesting) aspect of the simulation for me will be to see how quickly the Soviets can put together a good (army level at least) command structure to use their tangible resources (such as army-level support units). I wonder if something like signals and radio capabilities (which the Germans had if anything in excess) could be used to automate some of the Russian recovery of command control capability? Glantz and House in the Stalingrad series (vol1 is out) note that even at the army level in mid 1942, the Soviets did a terrible job with basic communications.

[vinnie71]

Size is not everything. This is the post Purge army we're talking about with such geniuses as Budenny in command. Also most of the Soviet army was dispersed and incapable of offering immediate counterattack. Also the bulk of the armour and aircraft available intially was crappy at best. The men are mostly inexperienced and in low morale. Its not just in C&C that the Red Army was deficient and what passed for a supreme leader and HQ were frankly caught with their pants down.

Back to the game. So rail conversion is in the game. Will we be able to send units by train from one point to another? If yes, will there be any repercussions?