War in the East Q&A

[ComradeP]

The more I think about, the more I feel a no replacements button or a lower selectable TOE level might be preferable and could possibly be discussed in the development forum. The reason is pretty simple: in cases where empty units return, or new units appear, the player is forced to build them up to at least 50% TOE strength, even though he may not have the desire to fill up those units or even use them at that point. Lowering the minimum TOE level to 10-25% (a cadre) could also work.

An example: late war German Panzer "divisions" and the various ad hoc formations that appear would suck up replacements you might not want to give them.

An example where the problem would be more serious: if a large number of Soviet units reappear or are created on the same turn, frontline units could be starved from replacements with the player not being able to do anything at all to prevent it.

If the selectable TOE level is lowered, or a no replacements feature is added, it might be preferable to have all reappearing or constructed units (aside from the off map support units) set to no replacements or the lowest TOE rating when they arrive. Otherwise it could be theoretically possible that an offensive grind to a complete halt because all your replacements are going to units that are completely unimportant at the time.

Likewise, replacements in general could be send to quiet fronts where they're not needed, which could be frustrating to the player.

[karonagames]

@ Neal_MLC. This is technically Jaw's thread, but he must be away. Posted below is the current 1941 campaign victory conditions. There is a ton of debate in the development forums on the dates so this is the current compromise, and is subject to change.

[ComradeP]

"24 or less VP's" stands for: the Germans need to have 24 or less VP's?

[karonagames]

@ComradeP. I have posted your post in the suggestions section of the development forum.

You do have the option to disband a unit that is rebuilding, but I can see the point that you are making.

The problem is that there is no "holding" area for the cadres to sit in, so once the stacking limits for the returning units is exceeded, any subsequent units that are eliminated would be totally destroyed with no option for rebuilding.

[karonagames]

@ComradeP. Yes, only Axis control of VPs is monitored.

[ComradeP]

You do have the option to disband a unit that is rebuilding, but I can see the point that you are making.

One of the problems I see is that, as I understand it, the replacements and logistics phase during a turn happens before the player can act, which would mean that if a large number of units would appear during a turn, they would suck up replacements before the player can either change their TOE levels, or disband them. It wouldn't be a big problem in small numbers, but if entire Armies pop up on the same turn, the problem could become serious.

The problem is that there is no "holding" area for the cadres to sit in, so once the stacking limits for the returning units is exceeded, any subsequent units that are eliminated would be totally destroyed with no option for rebuilding.

Do units reappear at a specific hex, or just on a map edge? If they appear on a specific hex, it should be possible to make them reappear in such a way that no more than 3 units will reappear on the same hex (pick 3, at the start of the scenario, on-map units or scheduled reinforcements, give them a hex to reappear on and pick 3 other units and select another hex, repeat until every unit has a reappearance hex). Reinforcements could possibly be finetuned in the same way (as they have fixed arrivals, so you know when they'll arrive). There's plenty of space on the western and eastern edges of the map and, judging by the map, also enough rail lines to make returning units reappear on a rail line or next to a city (making them reappear in the middle of nowhere is not ideal).

The "designated reappearance hex" approach would work for all on-map units at the start of the campaign, but not for player created units as it's not clear when they will appear and the game would have trouble dealing with units that have no fixed creation/arrival date. However, those units would be few in number compared to the on-map units on turn 1 and those scheduled to arrive as reinforcements.

It would probably require a change in the engine, but it would solve most of the "units destroyed upon arrival/reappearance due to stacking limits" problem (Soviet player created units that are destroyed prior to November 1941 would be the only problematic units, but even those units would be able to stack 3 high on a reappearance hex, so the number of units that would disappear would be small/negligible).

[karonagames]

There has been a lot of chopping and changing on the reappearance hex rules, and to be honest I have lost track, so someone else will have to answer this.

My gut feeling is that the number of units possibly affected does not get out of hand, and replacements are only delayed by one turn if you disband a cadre - the replacements are not lost if they are undamaged. I think when the Axis are desperate for front line troops at the bitter end is when replacement management becomes an issue, and as noted elsewhere we are several weeks away from being able to test to see if it is an issue or a problem. I haven't played enough as a Soviet to comment on the the problems they have managing returning units.

[karonagames]

I have managed to track down the latest reinforcement placement rules: there looks like there is more flexibility than with previous versions:

Excerpt from manual (Subject to change)

"Reinforcements appear per the unit reinforcement and withdrawal info screen. There are two methods of reinforcement placement for on-map units. In the first method, Axis combat and headquarters units will appear in the westernmost controlled city or urban hex of their nationality that does not violate stacking limits. Soviet combat and headquarters units will appear in the easternmost controlled city or urban hex under Soviet control, with the exception of the Moscow Defense Zone headquarters unit, which will appear in the vicinity of Moscow. Combat and headquarters units reinforcements that do not have an open spot in a valid city or urban hex will appear in a hex adjacent to a valid city or urban hex. If the situation should exist where there are no valid hexes available for the placement of a reinforcement unit, the unit will never appear. Destroyed combat and headquarters units that are reformed as nearly empty units to be rebuilt with replacements follow the same placement rules as above. In both these cases the units are placed on the map only in a city with the nationality matching the unit, with the westernmost (for Axis units) or easternmost (for Soviet units) valid city or urban hex being selected first.

In the second method, reinforcements will be scheduled to arrive at a designated hex on the map area. In order for the unit to be placed, it must meet three conditions. The designated hex must be friendly controlled, it must be at least 3 three hexes away from an enemy unit, and the reinforcement cannot violate the stacking limit upon entry

If the above conditions cannot be met, the six adjacent hexes to the originally designated hex will be checked and the unit placed in one of those if conditions can be met. If none of the 6 six adjacent hexes meets the conditions, then the unit will be placed in a town, city or urban hex somewhere to the east (Soviet) or west (Axis) that does meet the conditions. The designated or anticipated alternate arrival hex for the unit will be shown in the reinforcement and withdrawal screen.

Reinforcements and reforming units must follow the stacking limit of 3 three units per hex when being placed. Those units being placed as reinforcements that have a manpower of with less than 200 men on the reinforcement track will appear with morale of 40 and experience of near 30.

All ground units that appear as reinforcements are initially attached to their national high level headquarters (see section xx.x). Reassignment of reinforcements from their national high level headquarters unit to another headquarters unit does not cost any administrative points.

Air units that appear as reinforcements will initially be attached to their National Air Reserve."

[ComradeP]

How does the game keep track of reinforcement units for the "Reassignment of reinforcements from their national high level headquarters unit to another headquarters unit does not cost any administrative points." rule? Does it have to happen in a single turn, otherwise you have to pay AP's?

[karonagames]

The first transfer to a new HQ is free regardless of when it takes place.

[karonagames]

@ ComradeP. Re: Replacements. Well your suggestion managed to start a flame war in the development forum!!!
Seriously though, Joel made the very valid point that the system you proposed could allow players to use very gamey tactics such as creating "Ant" sized units to act as speed bumps (TOAW players are well versed in "Ant" tactics), it could also be used to manipulate HQ efficiency, so the 50% Max TOE setting was chosen as a compromise.

[ComradeP]

That's true, and also something I've been thinking about, especially since that AAR where GAIA kept creating brigades.

The only place where I can see it could be gamey would be along the Finnish front, where Soviet players could basically leave shells to guard the border. However, the Soviet player could already simply put forts there and withdraw all actual units as the Finns can't attack across the no attack line anyway.

The reason why I believe it won't work like in TOAW or other games, keeping in mind that the player could already just create a swarm of brigades, is that WitE features hasty attacks and has a fairly minimal ZOC penalty, I believe Jon mentioned that brigades don't give off any ZOC to begin with. In TOAW, an ant legion could slow you down due to the weird way combat and movement were tied to eachother. That isn't possible here, so that entire problem becomes much less of a problem as you could simply have one of your units kick the ants around so the rest would be able to advance. Not to mention that an ant army is also not possible due to HQ control limitations. No matter how many guys are in a division or brigade, I'm guessing the game still treats it as a division or brigade in terms of HQ C&C.

There's also another matter: essentially, the ant tactic is what the Soviet player uses in every match. None of their 1941 units can stand 1:1 against a German unit of the same size, so essentially the Soviet player sacrifices men and equipment to slow down the Germans.

The resources needed to move the ant legion to the front would also mean the rest of the line can become unhinged, as (like with the HQ C&C) I'm guessing the rail transport cost for a brigade or division is always the same no matter how many guys are in it.

Although I too have nightmares of the TOAW ant legions, I don't think that would be possible. However, Joel's concern is perfectly understandable, and one I share to a degree. It's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't affair.

There's still the possibility of some sort of compromise between preventing ant legions and preventing replacements being sucked to units that don't need them according to you. One problem I didn't think about earlier was that arriving units would also cannibalise the motorpool, so how's this:

-All units that arrive on the map in some way, either through reinforcements (reappearing and regular) or through being created arrive in static mode and are automatically set to 50% TOE.

-Units that arrive in static mode don't pay an AP penalty when being switched to any non-static mode (the same concept as what you described of HQ's switching for arriving units).

-Units in static mode can be set to ~25% TOE.

This solves a number of problems:

-Quiet fronts sucking up replacements. Those fronts are likely to be partially static. Now you might say "but you could pull off the ant legion tactic!". Static units would be toast vs any concentrated attack by a mobile, reasonably up to strength unit, and I doubt the player is going to put many units at the actual frontline at 25% TOE, as like the minor Axis, they would evaporate "when sneezed upon". This would, however, allow you to park units you don't need somewhere in the rear of the line and it will also allow you to cannibalise units, which is a perfectly historical practice. The player could starve a front from replacements just like their historical counterparts did, and they would also feel the consequences if the enemy would attack such a weak front (and basically tear it apart).

-Arriving units would not instantly suck up huge quantities of replacements and would not cannibalise the motorpool.

-It would also make sure the ant legion strategy of creating units and sending them to battle in 1 turn would not be possible, as the units would start as static units.

There are some issues with this approach too, but allowing static units to be set at a lower TOE level would be a good compromise to solve some of the problems that a minimum of 50% TOE setting has.

[karonagames]

I will try to make sure Joel reads your post.

[Naughteous Maximus]

In regards to modifying the Campaign, what is the earliest date you can launch the German invasion of Russian and the latest that the campaign can end? For those that are willing, I am sure you could do a mod where Germany did not attack Russia in"41 but was attacked by Russia in "42. That would be interesting.

[Great_Ajax]

The problem is that you only get the special surprise rules if the campaign starts on 22 June 1941 and some rules are year specific such as unit base morale. Other than that, you could do a scratch scenario on any timeline.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

In regards to modifying the Campaign, what is the earliest date you can launch the German invasion of Russian and the latest that the campaign can end? For those that are willing, I am sure you could do a mod where Germany did not attack Russia in"41 but was attacked by Russia in "42. That would be interesting.

[wosung]

According to this Q&A thread stacking limit will be 3 units per 10 mile hex. So for SU that would be 3 corps plus various kinds supporting units, wouldn’t it?

Will this be enough to represent very high late war Soviet troop density in offensive key sectors?

Just to take an extreme IRL example, the Vistula-Oder Operation beginning on January 12th 1945:
-Konev’s 1st Ukrainian Front attacked out of the Sandomirez (Baranów) bridgehead (45 x 36 miles) along a 18 mile (2 hexes) sector. As grinding and breakthrough forces he used 13th, 52nd Army, parts of 5th Guard and of 60th Army reinforced by 4th Tank Army, 25th and 31st Tank Corps. For exploitation there were 3rd and 4th Guard Tank Army, 31st Tank and 4th Guard Tank Corps. Breakthrough suceeded on January 12th 1945 within half a day.

-On January 14th 1945 Zhukov’s 1st Belorussian Front main attack started out of Magniszew (Warka) bridgehead (12 x 14 miles) along a 10 mile (1 hex) sector. As grinding and breakthrough forces he used 61st Army, 5th Shock(?) Army and 8th Guard Army. For exploitation there were 1st and 2nd Guard Tank Armies plus 2nd Guard Tank Corps. . Breakthrough suceeded on January 15th 1945.

Source: Richard Lakowski, Der Zusammenbruch der deutschen Verteidigung zwischen Ostsee und Karpaten [The collaps of the German defense between the Baltic and the Caparthian mountains], in: Rolf Dieter Müller, Der Zusammenbruch des Deutschen Reiches [The collaps of the Reich] Vol. 10.2., Munich 2008, p. 513.

Regards

[Helpless]

Other than that, you could do a scratch scenario on any timeline.

past June 22 1941

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: wosung

According to this Q&A thread stacking limit will be 3 units per 10 mile hex. So for SU that would be 3 corps plus various kinds supporting units, wouldn’t it?

Will this be enough to represent very high late war Soviet troop density in offensive key sectors?

Just to take an extreme IRL example, the Vistula-Oder Operation beginning on January 12th 1945:
-Konev’s 1st Ukrainian Front attacked out of the Sandomirez (Baranów) bridgehead (45 x 36 miles) along a 18 mile (2 hexes) sector. As grinding and breakthrough forces he used 13th, 52nd Army, parts of 5th Guard and of 60th Army reinforced by 4th Tank Army, 25th and 31st Tank Corps. For exploitation there were 3rd and 4th Guard Tank Army, 31st Tank and 4th Guard Tank Corps. Breakthrough suceeded on January 12th 1945 within half a day.

-On January 14th 1945 Zhukov’s 1st Belorussian Front main attack started out of Magniszew (Warka) bridgehead (12 x 14 miles) along a 10 mile (1 hex) sector. As grinding and breakthrough forces he used 61st Army, 5th Shock(?) Army and 8th Guard Army. For exploitation there were 1st and 2nd Guard Tank Armies plus 2nd Guard Tank Corps. . Breakthrough suceeded on January 15th 1945.

Source: Richard Lakowski, Der Zusammenbruch der deutschen Verteidigung zwischen Ostsee und Karpaten [The collaps of the German defense between the Baltic and the Caparthian mountains], in: Rolf Dieter Müller, Der Zusammenbruch des Deutschen Reiches [The collaps of the Reich] Vol. 10.2., Munich 2008, p. 513.

Regards

This is a perennial problem in monster East Front games. None of them have really solved it. This one comes closer than most (thanks to the late game shift to corps which in of itself goes a long ways to increase the force to space ratio), but it's very hard to simulate these sorts of unit densities. Regular stacking rules work well enough for ordinary situations, but I'm not sure how to account for circumstances where the Soviets have a chance to create massive bridgeheads. Bear in mind these kind of unit densities didn't occur ad hoc, they take weeks and months of preparation, planning, and positioning of units and supplies. You really don't want a default stacking rule that allows this anywhere and anytime.

The old game 3rd Reich by Avalon Hill had limited bridgehead counters to allow players to stack up to 5 units (as opposed to the ordinary 2 unit stack.) But that was a corps level game.

As a practical matter it may not matter a whole lot. My sense is that the Red Army is well able to achieve its operational goals in the end game once it rides out the 1941-2 period. So it may not be particularly necessary to jump through all the hoops to make this sort of thing work.

[Naughteous Maximus]

I was hoping to change the invasion date to either late May or early June '41 and now I'm told I can only choose dates June 22 or after? Thats not really helpful. Why even bother having an editor.[:(]

[Great_Ajax]

Uh, seriously? How about all the other hundreds of possibilities that occur during this time period?

Trey

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

I was hoping to change the invasion date to either late May or early June '41 and now I'm told I can only choose dates June 22 or after? Thats not really helpful. Why even bother having an editor.[:(]