Soviets historic OOB

[Tazak]

I've tried a search but cannot find any topic relating to why the soviets are not limited to their historic OOB.

We all know the german side is heavily restricted to their historic OOB as well as entry/withdrawal dates but i cannot understand why the russian side dont have the same restriction, there must be more than enough data detailing the soviet OOB, entry dates etc

[Blubel]

The basic idea is that as the Germans, you are limited because there were other fronts and you have to do with what is available. For the Soviets, there is only one front, so you can build what you want.
I would love to the a OOB mod, though.

[karonagames]

The soviet OOB was dictated by the losses they suffered and the units that were rebuilt. You can't force the Soviets to lose units according to their historic date of destruction, so you can't bring them back on the day they historically re-appeared.

[Blubel]

But you could make it work the same way as for the Germans. Every destroyed division comes back around the Urals and things that were not there at the beginning (rocket divisions, etc.) appears at the appropriate time. 

[elmo3]

This would be a major change to the game as it exists now.  IOW it's not going to happen.  No idea at this point what will change in WitE 2.

[Wuffer]

Why not make a mod?
You could call it scenario II...

And Scenario III will became Axis' wet dream - let 'em built 500 Tigers - per week.
Biggest problem left is find a human opponent ))



...
No offense, please.

[Tazak]

you cannot mod this, as elmo3 points out, it would require some major recoding of how the game works

IF the reinforcement/production system on the soviet side was the same as would tactics be different, sure there'd be less inf corp spam (or soon to be arty div spam), but would it put the soviets in a worst position than now during the early stages of the war or better.

With soviet divisions reappearing as per the german system, it would free up a lot of AP for the soviet side, would it be less micromanagement
for the march 42 change ot corp units over divisions, it'd need the same withdrawal notice to avoid huge sections of the soviet line just vanishing

would it make manpower centers more important (less per turn resulting in longer time for destroyed units to get to ready status

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

I've tried a search but cannot find any topic relating to why the soviets are not limited to their historic OOB.

We all know the german side is heavily restricted to their historic OOB as well as entry/withdrawal dates but i cannot understand why the russian side dont have the same restriction, there must be more than enough data detailing the soviet OOB, entry dates etc

There is a very simple answer to your question: The German Army of 1944 -1945 is not radically different from the German Army of 1941 - 1942. Yes, the German TOEs modify over the course of the War but it is basically the same army. This consistency is not true of the Red Army. The Red Army of 1944-1945 looks totally different from the Red Army of 1941 which even looks different from the Red Army of 1942.

We could have had a fixed OOB for the Red Army which created Rifle Corps, Tank Corps, Artillery Divisions, etc. at the historical time with the corresponding withdrawals of other units to form them but this method would have been far more cumbersome and less efficient that letting the player create his/her own Red Army. Had the German Army undergone a transformation similar to the Red Army then it is likely we would have given the Axis player the same ability to create units but since it didn't such a capability was unnecessary.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: jaw
We could have had a fixed OOB for the Red Army which created Rifle Corps, Tank Corps, Artillery Divisions, etc. at the historical time with the corresponding withdrawals of other units to form them but this method would have been far more cumbersome and less efficient that letting the player create his/her own Red Army.

I don't think it needs to be too complicated. Provide the historical Rifle/Cav Divisions/Brigades, Tank/Mech Brigades, and Artillery Brigades, and still allow for manual unit build-up (Rifle/Tank/Mech Corps, Artillery Division). Also, provide a list of these built up units to provide some basic guide for players. As it is, players have little to no idea what they're supposed to do. Additionally, the historic support units could also easily be provided, as again, players have no idea what they are supposed to build and when.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Schmart


I don't think it needs to be too complicated. Provide the historical Rifle/Cav Divisions/Brigades, Tank/Mech Brigades, and Artillery Brigades, and still allow for manual unit build-up (Rifle/Tank/Mech Corps, Artillery Division). Also, provide a list of these built up units to provide some basic guide for players. As it is, players have little to no idea what they're supposed to do. Additionally, the historic support units could also easily be provided, as again, players have no idea what they are supposed to build and when.

You have a valid point and quite frankly I'm surprised that no one on the forum has come forth with their own "formula" for building the Red Army. My personal advice is to boot up the later campaign games and examine how the structure of the Red Army changes over time then use that information as a benchmark for how you build your own Red Army. Since every game is different saying you should have X number of this by Y date really wouldn't be very helpful. Also remember that some things that were build historically a player may never want to build given how they work in the game system. A good example is the Motorcycle Regiment which is utterly worthless in the game.

[Farfarer61]

amazingly good and refreshingly to the point answer there jaw[&o]

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: jaw
You have a valid point and quite frankly I'm surprised that no one on the forum has come forth with their own "formula" for building the Red Army.

It's taking some time, but I am working on a historical OOB guide.

Since every game is different saying you should have X number of this by Y date really wouldn't be very helpful.

One could say that for any side, in any wargame. And this X number on Y date formula is applied to the Axis, so why not the Russians? Aren't we trying to simulate the historical conditions of 1941-45?

Also remember that some things that were build historically a player may never want to build given how they work in the game system. A good example is the Motorcycle Regiment which is utterly worthless in the game.

This is probably my biggest beef. We have a historical wargame, that can't/doesn't make use of an historical OOB for one side. Isn't the whole point of an historical game to pitch the historical forces against each other and try to create a game system that will generate historically plausible results? What the current system allows, is for the Russian side to un-historically maximize the efficiency of their Army. Why only apply this to the Russians? There are units and formations the Germans used that were inefficient and useless in game terms. Why not allow the Axis the same ability to maximize efficiency? It doesn't make sense to adjust the historical OOB to make the system work. Shouldn't the system be adjusted to make the historical OOB work? Isn't that the point of a game like this? I agree that units like the Motorcycle Regiment (among many others) are useless in game terms. But why include them at all then? The German Infantry Gun companies are useless. Why include those? Finnish reserve Infantry Battalions? Get rid of the useless buggers! What does it say about the game system, when the historical OOB is in many ways actively DIS-couraged? I don't know Gary Grigsby personally, but from what I've read, he's a pretty details oriented guy. Thus it seems odd that so much detail and effort went into 75% of the game, but one large portion of it was largely abandonded.

Sorry for the rant. I really do love this game. I just think that there is so much more un-realized potential within the game.

[Tentpeg]

The bicycle recon battalion, the flak companies and SP Gun companies are (in game terms) a lazer sight equipped butcher knife but in reality they were useful. I agree with you 100% and wish both sides had the option to build the force structure needed to optimise success. Why this is not allowed simply baffles me. Good post.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

The bicycle recon battalion, the flak companies and SP Gun companies are (in game terms) a lazer sight equipped butcher knife but in reality they were useful. I agree with you 100% and wish both sides had the option to build the force structure needed to optimise success. Why this is not allowed simply baffles me. Good post.

The SP Gun companies were put in because if I had left out the sIG33 people would have been screaming to high heaven. I originally tried having them part of the Panzer Division TOE but with only 30 vehicles and no replacements for over a year this got weird very fast. The SP Gun company was a solution that allowed them to be represented in more reasonable fashion. BTW, these companies come attached to panzer divisions but should be returned to corps ASAP to preserve their strength as long as possible.

As for things like bicycle recon battalions or flak companies, the consensus of the designers and developers was to have as much detail as possible. I won't say where I came down on that issue. [;)]

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Schmart




This is probably my biggest beef. We have a historical wargame, that can't/doesn't make use of an historical OOB for one side. Isn't the whole point of an historical game to pitch the historical forces against each other and try to create a game system that will generate historically plausible results? What the current system allows, is for the Russian side to un-historically maximize the efficiency of their Army. Why only apply this to the Russians? There are units and formations the Germans used that were inefficient and useless in game terms. Why not allow the Axis the same ability to maximize efficiency? It doesn't make sense to adjust the historical OOB to make the system work. Shouldn't the system be adjusted to make the historical OOB work? Isn't that the point of a game like this? I agree that units like the Motorcycle Regiment (among many others) are useless in game terms. But why include them at all then? The German Infantry Gun companies are useless. Why include those? Finnish reserve Infantry Battalions? Get rid of the useless buggers! What does it say about the game system, when the historical OOB is in many ways actively DIS-couraged? I don't know Gary Grigsby personally, but from what I've read, he's a pretty details oriented guy. Thus it seems odd that so much detail and effort went into 75% of the game, but one large portion of it was largely abandonded.

Sorry for the rant. I really do love this game. I just think that there is so much more un-realized potential within the game.

I would question how much maximizing the efficiency of the Red Army the Soviet player can actually do. He can still only build the historical TOEs when they are available historically. He has no control over the availability of AFVs and limited control over how they are used. In a game of this size does it really matter whether you have more or less of any given formation type? You are not going to build 60 tank corps when the Soviets only built around 30 when the number of tanks is fixed (and we're not even getting into the truck drain all those extra tank corps would cause). Yes, at the margin you can produce a slightly better Red Army but to be able to significantly deviate from history means to significantly outperform history which means you won. It is time to stop that game and start another.

As for all those little worthless units in the Axis OOB all I can say is that whenever the inclusion of these units came up in development the constant refrain I heard was that the "grognards" would want this stuff in the game. So be it.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: jaw
I would question how much maximizing the efficiency of the Red Army the Soviet player can actually do. He can still only build the historical TOEs when they are available historically.

Well, to the extent that the player will 'game the system' (build whatever happens to work the best in game, not what is realistic/plausible historically) and won't build the large number of supporting units like Motorcycle Regiments, independent Tank Brigades, AT Brigades, Ski Brigades, etc that in game terms are more or less useless. Off the top of my head, the Soviets created 70+ independent AT Brigades. How many players build even one? Whether or not they are useless in game terms is irrelevant. The Russians obviously had a use for them, and isn't the game trying to simulate the Eastern Front? The game doesn't really simulate the Russian Army, certainly not to the extent that it does the German Army. I guess I just don't get that...an historical simulation without an historical OOB...

As for all the little Bn and Coy sized units...I could go either way: I'm just as happy with a grognard Monster game as I am with a beer and pretzels version. Just as long as the game is consistent. In that sense, I guess one could say that the German OOB is grognard, and the Russian is beer and pretzels. It doesn't add up for me.

[Denniss]

Is there a maximum limit for SOV or may they build whatever whenever they want unless they run out of AP ?

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: jaw
I would question how much maximizing the efficiency of the Red Army the Soviet player can actually do. He can still only build the historical TOEs when they are available historically.

Well, to the extent that the player will 'game the system' (build whatever happens to work the best in game, not what is realistic/plausible historically) and won't build the large number of supporting units like Motorcycle Regiments, independent Tank Brigades, AT Brigades, Ski Brigades, etc that in game terms are more or less useless. Off the top of my head, the Soviets created 70+ independent AT Brigades. How many players build even one? Whether or not they are useless in game terms is irrelevant. The Russians obviously had a use for them, and isn't the game trying to simulate the Eastern Front? The game doesn't really simulate the Russian Army, certainly not to the extent that it does the German Army. I guess I just don't get that...an historical simulation without an historical OOB...

As for all the little Bn and Coy sized units...I could go either way: I'm just as happy with a grognard Monster game as I am with a beer and pretzels version. Just as long as the game is consistent. In that sense, I guess one could say that the German OOB is grognard, and the Russian is beer and pretzels. It doesn't add up for me.

It's a real puzzle, but it's a Grigsby quirk. Another Grigsby game, War in the Pacific, which does the same thing. It allows the Jap player to mess with things, but the Allies can't. Another Grigsby game, BOmbing the Reich, does this also--the Germans get to mess with production and research. It's like there are two sides, but each is a significantly different kind of game experience.

[randallw]

No, there is no limit to how many units the Soviet side can build.

'Whaaaattt?' you say. Why doesn't a Soviet player build everything then, using up all the APs?

STAVKA's command limit gets overloaded in 1941; each unit that uses a command point makes it a little worse.
The Soviet manpower multiplier goes down as the war moves along; eventually the casualties can overtake the replacement manpower needed to fill out the mass of units.
Soviet heavy tanks are not produced in massive numbers; production won't keep up with a significant amount of heavy tank regiments deployed ( say 30 ).

[Denniss]

I'd like to see some sort of cap for inf/cav/mot/mountain divs/corps/brigades, that'll force a soviet player to build more support elements like AT or tank regiments.