How to limit attacks all over the front - attack supply, the golden bullet

[Tarhunnas]

An excellent point raised by hfarrish in the 1942 problem thread led me to write down some thoughts on front wide attacks in WITE, and I realized the subject probably merits its own thread.

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

2. Blizzard - also basically working, although some system of restricting the Soviets to targeted offensives rather than broad, entire front wide blastings couldn't hurt (no idea if this is possible, but throwing it out there).

I think this is coupled to the supply issue. A system where each side had the ability to activate a number of armies for "attack supply" on different levels would solve this. Armies on full attack supply would attack normally, armies on lower levels would have their attack ability (maybe chiefly artillery effectiveness) reduced, or reduced after a very small number of attacks (to allow for local counteroffensives and such). This could also nicely replace the HQ buildup system. German armies on full attack supply would receive higher levels of fuel.

Levels of attack supply would be set during the previous turn, simulating that major offensives required planning and a buildup of supplies beforehand.

The amount of attack supply would of course have to be tailored to what seems to have been available historically. In 1941, the Germans were able to attack over the whole front for most of the summer, but at the end of 1941 they basically were forced to concentrate all their efforts to operation Typhoon. I suspect the reason for not pressing the attack on Leningrad was partly a function of having to prioritize supplies.

The Soviets should not have much attack supply in 1941, simulating general chaos and unpreparedness, and in winter 1941 the ability to attack with a reasonable number of armies.

In 1942 Germans should be able to attack over about half the front, but at the end of the year confined to a last push (Stalingrad) and so on.

It should of course be able to accumulate saved attack supply to prepare for big offensives.

This would have a number of positive side effects. The Soviets might not have to rely so much on forts to stop the Germans in 1941 if the Jerries run out of steam supply wise, and that might help to solve the fort issue. The system of static units that is used to limit activity in the later scenarios could be revised.

Attacks all over the front are at present mostly held back due to the forts and their effects, which have been identified as a problem. A system of attack supply would enable a much freer hand in solving the fort issue.

It might also incidentally make it possible to reduce the mud attack penalty, which I think is excessive, to something more reasonable. If players want to waste attack supply attacking in mud at lower chances of success, let them do it. It would probably also reduce German post 1941 blizzard activity, which is currently much too easy IMHO. Germans would be loth to waste attack supply with the high movement costs and smaller chances of breakthrough in blizzard.

[davetheroad]

This would potentially tranform the feel of the game in a positive way

Without going into details Chasman and I played the Stalingrad scenario of the 'old' SPI War in the East

Standard scenario. Germans attack everwhere in the summer and wipe out the russian salients in the north. russians attack everywhere in the winter etc etc.

Modified scenario - we gave each side 'command elements' and restricted attacking to within a certain distance of these.
The germans had 2 and intially the russians 1 rising to 2 in the winter.

The germans had to place one in the Crimea at start so their initial offensive on the main front was in one place until Sevastopol was reduced.

Result - It TOTALLY tranformed the scenario in a positive way. The Germans did not have the resources to attack in the north AND drive east in the south. The russians could throw huge slabs of armour at 2nd army and only in the winter did they have the capability of launching a Uranus and Mars.

I am not suggesting that this is the soluton for this game but even late war the russians were staging their offensives and it was probably for logistical reasons. 1944- supply goes to Belorussia and once the front goes fluid supply is diverted to the Ukraine and when that goes fluid supply is diverted to Rumania. Result- a lovely echeloned trategic offensive.

[jomni]

The Army activation idea is also what I got from the other thread.
 
Why not use AP's to activate armies?  It's easier and more elegant.  Makes you think more about AP spending.  And you wouldn't have to rewrite the supply code.

[davetheroad]

In essence the germans could attack with 3 army groups in summer 41, Two in summer 42 and one for the rest of the war one?

The russians one in 41 and 42 and two in 43 - 44?

Pity the russians don't have the 'Direction' command level or it could be called the STAVKA representative.

[davetheroad]

ORIGINAL: jomni

The Army activation idea is also what I got from the other thread.

Why not use AP's to activate armies?  It's easier and more elegant.  Makes you think more about AP spending.  And you wouldn't have to rewrite the supply code.

That sound interesting
Of course the devil is in the detail, imagine ingenious players ending up with 50 divisions in a army!

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: davetheroad

ORIGINAL: jomni

The Army activation idea is also what I got from the other thread.

Why not use AP's to activate armies?  It's easier and more elegant.  Makes you think more about AP spending.  And you wouldn't have to rewrite the supply code.

That sound interesting
Of course the devil is in the detail, imagine ingenious players ending up with 50 divisions in a army!

I think it needs separate attack supply points. The cost of putting an army in attack supply would be related to the number of units in the army and their weaponry. I am pretty certain the game calculates this already for normal supply.

Also, I envisage different levels of attack supply, perhaps 0 to 4, not just on or off, but that could be handled either way. The main advantage of different levels would be to enable it to replace HQ buildup. One Panzer Group could get 4, which gives it more MPs than the neighboring Panzer Group which has 3, while a third PG has 0 and is sitting resting.

[Mehring]

Surely such an attack supply should be modified by the logistical support of the unit in question and the ability of the supply net to supply the unit. There should also be a finite quantity of such supply per turn based upon industrial and rail capacity.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Surely such an attack supply should be modified by the logistical support of the unit in question and the ability of the supply net to supply the unit. There should also be a finite quantity of such supply per turn based upon industrial and rail capacity.

Yes, of course the actual supply delivered to the units should be subject to distance and supply path etc.

[Aussiematto]

Definitely like the idea of putting armies into attack mode. It really would work nicely (and I note that some house rules from 1.03 have been used along these lines for the Sovs at least). In effect, just as you can put a division into static mode, you can put Armies into 'attack' mode. You could, also, flip it, and have armies that go 'defensive' (equivalent to static) and, in doing so, free up supplies etc for the rest of the armies. So either do a 'spend APs to get 'attack mode' and power' or do a 'you won't have enough power unless you put some armies to defensive'.

[Commanderski]

+1

I Like the idea and that should be something that could be included in a future update.

[zanekin]

If it could be implemented, it would fill the last gap to the perfection.

I appreciate this concept extensively used in SSG operationnal games.

[Q-Ball]

It's a good idea. Other than the Germans in 1941, nobody was able to sustain a total front-wide attack stance. Well, maybe late in the war for the Soviets.


The ONLY problem I forsee is that the computer can't tell the difference between an "Offensive", and a "Counterattack". All units need the ability to counterattack while conducting a strategic defense. You wouldn't want that taken away. Not sure how to solve that one.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The ONLY problem I forsee is that the computer can't tell the difference between an "Offensive", and a "Counterattack". All units need the ability to counterattack while conducting a strategic defense. You wouldn't want that taken away. Not sure how to solve that one.

Good point. But wouldn't counterattacks use the same 'attack points' but less due to their localised nature? If each side attacks and defends in equal measure who is attacker and who defender becomes blurred.

[Ketza]

Armies not in attack supply have firing rates for offence halved.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Armies not in attack supply have firing rates for offence halved.

Or armies not in attack supply can only do hasty attack (same effect?).
Or do you want the penalties to stack up? Yikes!

[Mynok]

A very interesting idea indeed....the HQ buildup issue has been problematic for a while, and this idea almost seems to me like forcing a 'buildup' with the supporting infantry as well. This sounds good on the surface as right now, infantry pretty much is always in attack supply if it is in supply.

If it were done on an AP basis, it would have to be carefully modeled as the Germans have lots of APs and might be able to still do more than they possibly could. On the Russian side, it might become too much of a hinderance come 43 and later if not set right.

But I do think it could work nicely.

[Mehring]

I think attack stockpiles' might best be dealt with points held in and transfered between HQs.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Armies not in attack supply have firing rates for offence halved.

One thing to consider is that I don't think you want to limit the ability to launch diversions - might it make sense to have a rule like this apply to subsequent attacks (both within the same turn and in subsequent turns)? In other words, every unit could launch one attack under normal firing rates - but the second attack (or an attack by the same unit in the next turn) if not in attack supply would suffer the penalty.

This also might help deal with the counterattack issue QBall mentions.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Armies not in attack supply have firing rates for offence halved.

One thing to consider is that I don't think you want to limit the ability to launch diversions - might it make sense to have a rule like this apply to subsequent attacks (both within the same turn and in subsequent turns)? In other words, every unit could launch one attack under normal firing rates - but the second attack (or an attack by the same unit in the next turn) if not in attack supply would suffer the penalty.

This also might help deal with the counterattack issue QBall mentions.

The only way to avoid this becoming an artificial constraint is to use 'attack points' as what they are supposed to represent- producable, expendable stockpiles of war materials. An attack with X many men, guns and vehicles uses X amount of the corps/army/front stockpile. Attacks made without the benefit of such stockpiles would have some CV penalty, the amount determined by testing the system.

Could also be subdivided into fuel and munitions, maybe. Factories and resource centres produce these materials.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Armies not in attack supply have firing rates for offence halved.

One thing to consider is that I don't think you want to limit the ability to launch diversions - might it make sense to have a rule like this apply to subsequent attacks (both within the same turn and in subsequent turns)? In other words, every unit could launch one attack under normal firing rates - but the second attack (or an attack by the same unit in the next turn) if not in attack supply would suffer the penalty.

This also might help deal with the counterattack issue QBall mentions.

The only way to avoid this becoming an artificial constraint is to use 'attack points' as what they are supposed to represent- producable, expendable stockpiles of war materials. An attack with X many men, guns and vehicles uses X amount of the corps/army/front stockpile. Attacks made without the benefit of such stockpiles would have some CV penalty, the amount determined by testing the system.

Could also be subdivided into fuel and munitions, maybe. Factories and resource centres produce these materials.

Treat the points as ammo/fuel/engineering materials. A week's attack by a mobile division = a week's movement by a mobile division = a week's attack by an infantry corps = a week's movement by an infantry corps = one level of fortification built in a hex. Defence is a bit cheaper, but also has to be paid for. Juggle the ratios a bit, but that's the flavour.