Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
ORIGINAL: loki100
agree in part, ie both sides chucked battalions/regiments into a formation in contact to refill it (eg the Soviet feeding in of reserves at Stalingrad). But every account of the war from the Soviet perspective mentions 'xxxx army was drawn into Stavka reserve'. This seemed to happen after a major battle or when the Soviets were building up and shifting reserves.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Don't beat yourself too hard over this Pelton, it's more or less impossible to catch everything before release. Nature of the beast. At some point you simply have to push the product out and get it played by the largest number of people possible and adjust accordingly. Which is now happening, so it's all good.
ORIGINAL: Oshawott
can't say that I like or agree with anything that reinforces the replacement shuffle. It's never been clear to me why at the scale this game is played, reinforcement to full 100% can't take place in any given hex, even if adjacent to the enemy. It's just micromanagement hell. This isn't a tactical level game. The effect desired is or ought to be fully modeled by attrition losses, and nothing further is needed.
As others note, this mechanic oddly favors the offense in an IGOUGO game system. Which strikes me as deeply perverse.
Agree. I think the 60% rule is as artificial as ATTACK+1. A hex is roughly 10x10 miles. It's inconceivable why a division would be stuck at 60%. I have not played past turn 2 with the new patch so I can't say what the long term effects are but I can already tell that troops are not going were I want them to go and Russian manpower pool is twice as high as under 1.07.15.
ORIGINAL: Wuffer
/OT
ORIGINAL: loki100
agree in part, ie both sides chucked battalions/regiments into a formation in contact to refill it (eg the Soviet feeding in of reserves at Stalingrad). But every account of the war from the Soviet perspective mentions 'xxxx army was drawn into Stavka reserve'. This seemed to happen after a major battle or when the Soviets were building up and shifting reserves.
When ever they could, they did of course.
Or when they really must, in other words when the formation was unready (= 'trashed beyond any recognition').
On paper, a German division of 16'000 for example consists of 3 x regiments á 108 squads x 10 man.
Add to this platoon HQs, heavy MGs etc., even the recce Btn and you will be still under 4'000 bayonet strengh = the poor guys that actually shot at the other poor guys = 20-25 %.
While 10-20% losses didn't sound so much (with the exception of those who had been in the fire) and were not uncommon, in reality this risks already the complete Division as a coherent fighting unit because the majority of the casualities happened in the rifle squads.
20 % losses could mean half of the companies completly wiped out... and this is something which you did not want to fix in the field, I agree.
But the German had to do, because they were allready lacking any reserves; at some part during '41 the complete strategic reserve were exactly 1 Inf.-Div and 1 Pz.-Div - for the whole eastern theatre.
As said, pulling formations out of the front to refill them was more the american way, whenever the germans or sowjet pulled something out, you could guess there was not much blood left
edit: this was not meant directly for you, Loki, as you know all this stuff as well, but more for the developers (not Morveal/denniss in this case)... infantry squads should have highest priority in building and not heavy arty or expensive Calvry or fancy infantry guns for an army already on full retreat...
That's right. In the German system every division was assigned an "Ersatz-Regiment" that provided the replacements for the battalions of said division. And the Germans were big believers in the strength of what later on would be called the primary group. Therefore they were very hesitant to push single companys / whatever as replacements into frontline units. Rather they would keep their units so long in the field until they were no longer combat worthy before pulling the entire unit out and refit back in Germany or occupied France. Of course as the war in the east went on this practice became harder and harder with the mounting losses and the heavy pressure, especially after 1942/43.ORIGINAL: IronDuke
The German replacement system (IIRC) revolved around each division having a replacement battalion based at home that trained and delivered new recruits to the front. Once a unit joined heavy combat, it was not unusual for the replacement system to be unable to keep up and units to be permanently at 60-70%.
As for refit, the Germans rebuilt units in France or Germany rather than within 10 miles of the front. They tended to run divisions down to the bare bones and withdraw the battalion sized remnant as a cadre for the rebuild.
I agree the game mechanics cause issues here that need to be addressed, but the current system seems plausible enough to me from a historical perspective, so do it for game reasons, not historical ones...
Regards,
ID.
I can't find out where is "the color option
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
ID, this issue seems to me insoluble from a game mechanics standpoint and I'm absolutely content to ignore history here. Trying to nail this down will not result in a more realistic game. Micro in this instance must give way to macro.
In order to truly get this right you'd have to jack up attacker losses to give them a reason to want to pull units to begin with. This kind of attrition mostly doesn't exist, especially not in 1941. The game produces losses mostly on the defender's end until fairly late in the game for the Axis. Late in the war, Soviets themselves can more or less ignore their own losses as an attacker -- amounting in many cases to 1% of the forces involved in very large attacks. The game is systematically biased in favor of the offense.
Forcing the player to shuffle units around just doubles down on this problem.
Agreed. It is somewhat unrealistic that a division at 50% for example gets to 100% over a week. Moreover the 100% are as man-for-man as strong as the original 50%. Refit should at least bring some penalties in regard to experience and morale, so that players think twice before just busting off divisions to refit.ORIGINAL: IronDuke
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
ID, this issue seems to me insoluble from a game mechanics standpoint and I'm absolutely content to ignore history here. Trying to nail this down will not result in a more realistic game. Micro in this instance must give way to macro.
In order to truly get this right you'd have to jack up attacker losses to give them a reason to want to pull units to begin with. This kind of attrition mostly doesn't exist, especially not in 1941. The game produces losses mostly on the defender's end until fairly late in the game for the Axis. Late in the war, Soviets themselves can more or less ignore their own losses as an attacker -- amounting in many cases to 1% of the forces involved in very large attacks. The game is systematically biased in favor of the offense.
Forcing the player to shuffle units around just doubles down on this problem.
No argument there. My vote would be to scrap the TOE max figures so units at the front could naturally rebuild to whatever level they wanted, but force refit to require special circumstances.
I think refit gets overused, and is very un-historical as it stands. German units generally spent the war fighting at reduced strength. In reality, refit would involve integrating and inoculating new men, fixing equipment, some training etc. The Germans got wave after wave of new divisions precisely because they didn't draft thousands of replacements into combat units immediately before throwing them into the fray. The men were held back for new formations, or the rebuild of existing formations that had been reduced to cadre strength.
Regards,
ID.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
8 issues fixed, internal beta available to testers
I would like the Red Sea parted can you do that asap.
[&o]
ORIGINAL: morvael
8 issues fixed, internal beta available to testers [:)]
