NKVD supermen

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Pavel seems to indicate that if you make a deliberate attack on an NKVD regiment it is more likely to shatter/rout. I haven't yet tried this myself but that seemed to be what I gathered from email back and forth with him on this issue. We are currently studying it.

I think that would be because the defender losses in a deliberate attack would be high enough to get to whatever shatter threshhold exists in the game. The problem, of course, is whether using half of an infantry division's movement points (on average) in a set piece battle against some half-strength regiment of gendarmes is a rational decision given the time constraints on the Axis player in the first dozen turns of the game.

Even if they simply rout, rather than shatter, IIRC there is only a 20% chance that the regiment gets disbanded and removed from the game.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: jaw

Pavel seems to indicate that if you make a deliberate attack on an NKVD regiment it is more likely to shatter/rout. I haven't yet tried this myself but that seemed to be what I gathered from email back and forth with him on this issue. We are currently studying it.

I think that would be because the defender losses in a deliberate attack would be high enough to get to whatever shatter threshhold exists in the game. The problem, of course, is whether using half of an infantry division's movement points (on average) in a set piece battle against some half-strength regiment of gendarmes is a rational decision given the time constraints on the Axis player in the first dozen turns of the game.

Even if they simply rout, rather than shatter, IIRC there is only a 20% chance that the regiment gets disbanded and removed from the game.

Calling the NKVD regiments gendarmes is like calling a S.W.A.T. team meter maids. They were elite troops, the Soviet equivalent of Waffen SS. They should be very resistant to destruction. We are considering a rule to have them eventually disband only because they were not designed for the kind sustained combat they are performing in the game.

[Flaviusx]

Just jack up the disband rate and call it a day, imo. I lose a bit over two a turn to auto disbands on average under the existing rules. Bump this up to 50% and that would go up to approximately 5 a turn.

[HCDawson]

Would a rule that makes forces of divisional strength (at say 60%+ TOE) pay a reduced cost to attack sub divisional units be a possible solution? If we are being told these forces are surviving in part because they are constantly retreating over the course of said week, are they not in fact retreating before the divisional rece or other forward KG? The entire division even in a hasty attack is not then deploying artillery or its main battle contingent -- and thus the operational costs to move that division forward should be lower.

[HCDawson]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: jaw

Pavel seems to indicate that if you make a deliberate attack on an NKVD regiment it is more likely to shatter/rout. I haven't yet tried this myself but that seemed to be what I gathered from email back and forth with him on this issue. We are currently studying it.

I think that would be because the defender losses in a deliberate attack would be high enough to get to whatever shatter threshhold exists in the game. The problem, of course, is whether using half of an infantry division's movement points (on average) in a set piece battle against some half-strength regiment of gendarmes is a rational decision given the time constraints on the Axis player in the first dozen turns of the game.

Even if they simply rout, rather than shatter, IIRC there is only a 20% chance that the regiment gets disbanded and removed from the game.

Calling the NKVD regiments gendarmes is like calling a S.W.A.T. team meter maids. They were elite troops, the Soviet equivalent of Waffen SS. They should be very resistant to destruction. We are considering a rule to have them eventually disband only because they were not designed for the kind sustained combat they are performing in the game.

Some NKVD were, but were not many of the units in question the bridge and railway guards with perhaps a small combat contingent somewhere in support? I've seen plenty of reports where the wives and children of these men died in the basements of the 'forts' or were caught in nearby villages. It seems a bit of a stretch to turn such folk into the same as the 1st Battalion/I Regt. of Das Reich or LAH.

[Michael T]

I think a problem here is that all the NKVD units in WITE are being treated as quality troops. But only a small portion of units were actually effective combatants. The vast majority were border police and not worth a pinch of poo in real fight. There needs to be a distinction between the two types.

[PeeDeeAitch]

Speaking as a player not worth a pinch of poo, I am offended.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The game needs an over run rule. Its that simple. I can't think of a good game (IMO) on the Eastern Front that didn't have one.

+1

The model for convincing operational war games has been on the table top since the 1970s at least (and working brilliantly) and almost all of the ideas for improvements put forward in this forum have some kind of parallel in the original cardboard GDW or AH games and the like.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The game needs an over run rule. Its that simple. I can't think of a good game (IMO) on the Eastern Front that didn't have one.

+1

The model for convincing operational war games has been on the table top since the 1970s at least (and working brilliantly) and almost all of the ideas for improvements put forward in this forum have some kind of parallel in the original cardboard GDW or AH games and the like.

I cannot believe you could make this comment about a game based and titled on SPIs War in the East and not mention SPI! [X(][:D]

[ComradeP]

I think a problem here is that all the NKVD units in WITE are being treated as quality troops.

Aside from a small morale bonus for the regiments, there's nothing special about them. They're not elite and the NKVD Rifle units are just regular Rifle units without any bonus.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The game needs an over run rule. Its that simple. I can't think of a good game (IMO) on the Eastern Front that didn't have one.

+1

The model for convincing operational war games has been on the table top since the 1970s at least (and working brilliantly) and almost all of the ideas for improvements put forward in this forum have some kind of parallel in the original cardboard GDW or AH games and the like.

I cannot believe you could make this comment about a game based and titled on SPIs War in the East and not mention SPI! [X(][:D]

Quoting myself because I just remembered something from those days when I played SPI's War in the East. When I saw they had put out War in Europe (with War in the West), I wrote SPI on what would it take to convert what I had to War in Europe. They sent me everything, mapboards, counters, rules - FOR FREE!!![X(]

No wonder they went bankrupt.

[GBS]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The game needs an over run rule. Its that simple. I can't think of a good game (IMO) on the Eastern Front that didn't have one.

+1

The model for convincing operational war games has been on the table top since the 1970s at least (and working brilliantly) and almost all of the ideas for improvements put forward in this forum have some kind of parallel in the original cardboard GDW or AH games and the like.

Am I incorrect in my understanding of the current route system that it is in fact like an overrun? I understand that the troops and equipment of the routed unit are scattered to the wind so to speak, much like an overrun in my view, and that the hex where the unit icon appears is just where the unit will reconstitute itself when it has recovered from Route status. Correct? The current system seems to be a good one to me.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: GBS

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The game needs an over run rule. Its that simple. I can't think of a good game (IMO) on the Eastern Front that didn't have one.

+1

The model for convincing operational war games has been on the table top since the 1970s at least (and working brilliantly) and almost all of the ideas for improvements put forward in this forum have some kind of parallel in the original cardboard GDW or AH games and the like.

Am I incorrect in my understanding of the current route system that it is in fact like an overrun? I understand that the troops and equipment of the routed unit are scattered to the wind so to speak, much like an overrun in my view, and that the hex where the unit icon appears is just where the unit will reconstitute itself when it has recovered from Route status. Correct? The current system seems to be a good one to me.

Hmmm, I'd rather say that the thing most close to that of overruns is the SHATTERED combat result. However, as already pointed out on this thread - and implied by "overrun" advocates - this result is only influenced by factors (toe, morale, experience) in the defender, being indifferent to the type of attack (motorized or not, devastating air superiority over the battlefield, etc.).

[Michael T]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I think a problem here is that all the NKVD units in WITE are being treated as quality troops.

Aside from a small morale bonus for the regiments, there's nothing special about them. They're not elite and the NKVD Rifle units are just regular Rifle units without any bonus.

Well there is something in the code thats stopping them routing like any other Soviet unit. Thus WITE is treating NKVD units somewhat differently to other Soviet units in general. By what mechanism I do not know. But in early 1941 I can't think of another unit that is so hard to kill off. Even Para units seem to die easier.

As for 'overrun' and 'rout' being roughly equivalent, I don't by it. An overrun should leave pretty much no survivors, like said above, it would be more like a shatter or even surrender.