Force, Formation, and Unit recommended settings

[mussey]

The Next War 1979 (Bob Cross)
FYI: Here is an example of Formation Proficiency and Formation Supply for 1st-line land. The original boardgame ranged from 0 to 6:

Country/Boardgame/Next War Proficiency/ & Supply:
Austria 2/ 65/ 80
Belgium 2/ 70/ 80
Canada 6/ 90/ 100
Denmark 0/ 70/ 85
France 4/ 90/ 100
Italy 2/ 75/ 90
Nether. 2/ 75/ 90
Norway na
UK 6/ 90/ 100
US 3/ 80/ 100
W. Ger. 5/ 90/ 100

USSR 4/ 80/ 80
Poland 3/ 70/ 75
E. Ger. 3/ 70/ 75
Czecho. 3/ 70/ 75
Hungary 3/ 100/ 75

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Down the road, I hope to split Proficiency into two parameters: Skill and Commitment.

That will be interesting Bob. Will this value then be combined into a final total? Just curious how that will work out.

[Lobster]

Perhaps they were committed later. But early on they were not. The NKVD border guards were highly motivated and better trained than the majority of the RKKA and deserve a 50 or 60 proficiency. But generally the rank and file RKKA were not as dedicated to the current regime. They surrendered in masses, abandoning perfectly good tanks and guns. Huge numbers could be marched off to POW camps with few guards. That does not smell like dedicated. It was only after the initial border battles that it became a fight for Mother Russia. The encouragement at the point of a gun developed slowly also with a few exceptions. Initially it was mostly applied to the higher ranks with generally disastrous results for the army. The battle at Dubno was a result of one of those encouragements at the point of a gun. It didn't go well for the RKKA.

Dedicated are the few who melted into the forests and became the partisans.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

That will be interesting Bob. Will this value then be combined into a final total? Just curious how that will work out.

Well, the idea would be that Skill would mostly impact Combat Strength, while Commitment would mostly impact Morale Checks. But, in practice, it will be more complex than that.

Skill will be the thing that can increase with experience/training, while Commitment will sort of be fixed for the duration - perhaps modified by events.

[Zovs]

Makes sense. Thanks Bob.

[cathar1244]

Despite the name of the parameter, Unit Proficiency is sort of a combination of Skill and Commitment. (Where commitment is willingness to die for your cause).

I like the idea of splitting those two.

Cheers

[cathar1244]

Hungary 3/ 100/ 75

Bob, heads-up re: this quote and your Next War 1979 scenario, Hungary has 100 for formation proficiency and supply distribution, quite a bit better than the Soviet Union. (You may have already spotted this.)

Cheers

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Hungary 3/ 100/ 75

Bob, heads-up re: this quote and your Next War 1979 scenario, Hungary has 100 for formation proficiency and supply distribution, quite a bit better than the Soviet Union. (You may have already spotted this.)

Cheers

It was the goulash. It made 'em mad. Damn mad. Mad enough to fight.

We should all get some of this.

[cathar1244]

Here is a try at comparing ratings used in different scenarios. This one looks at the ratings of three NATO-Warsaw Pact scenarios.

Cheers

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Here is a try at comparing ratings used in different scenarios. This one looks at the ratings of three NATO-Warsaw Pact scenarios.

Cheers

Well done. The difficulty for designers is how to quantify these numbers. Very subjective. It is relatively easy to build an Orbat, or decide if a particular hex should have a forest or light forest. Not so for these adjustments.

Another complication is that TOAW, as it is now cannot distinguish Force level multipliers among the services: Army, Navy, Air Force. (Maybe in the future it will.) So for example, a Natl Intell Estimate 1979 stresses Soviet weakness in pilot training, suggesting 25-35% of Soviet pilots not qualified to conduct all-weather or night missions. Now for my purposes I can adjust the unit proficiencies to take this into account, but if there were separate force adjustments for Air forces, it would give me another tool for scenario design.

[cathar1244]

ORIGINAL: mussey

The difficulty for designers is how to quantify these numbers. Very subjective.

What caught my eye were the force and formation supply ratings. There is variation; sometimes I wonder if it was based on something like the percentage of GNP spent on defense or the like. Something like that could be used to establish unit and formation proficiency ratings in hypothetical cases like NATO:WP.

Cheers

[StuccoFresco]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In 1941 the Soviets were not very skillful, but they were highly committed (if only because of the machine gun at their backs.)

In contrast, the Italians were fairly skillful, but not committed at all.

I'm not really convinced on either of those claims.

Many Soviet troops in 1941 weren't committed at all. Morale was very low in many units because of the terrible state of supplies, officers and the usual brutality of Soviet/Russian military life. Of course there were WILD variation between units, as always. But a lot of units melted because morale was really low even before the war. Others fought with insane bravery even against insurmountable odds.

Italian troops were a REALLY mixed bag. """Elite""" units were both skilled and very committed, but the bulk of the infantry was poorly trained, led by relatively bad officers (higher ranks mostly) and poorly equipped. VERY poorly equipped.


I think unless it's possible to divide each country in different "factions", each with its own set of parameters, there is no way to represent all that. After all, EVERY army ever had "good" and "bad" units...

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: StuccoFresco

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In 1941 the Soviets were not very skillful, but they were highly committed (if only because of the machine gun at their backs.)

In contrast, the Italians were fairly skillful, but not committed at all.

I'm not really convinced on either of those claims.

Many Soviet troops in 1941 weren't committed at all. Morale was very low in many units because of the terrible state of supplies, officers and the usual brutality of Soviet/Russian military life. Of course there were WILD variation between units, as always. But a lot of units melted because morale was really low even before the war. Others fought with insane bravery even against insurmountable odds.

Italian troops were a REALLY mixed bag. """Elite""" units were both skilled and very committed, but the bulk of the infantry was poorly trained, led by relatively bad officers (higher ranks mostly) and poorly equipped. VERY poorly equipped.


I think unless it's possible to divide each country in different "factions", each with its own set of parameters, there is no way to represent all that. After all, EVERY army ever had "good" and "bad" units...

I'm wondering how commitment will square with morale. Can a unit be committed but have poor morale. Or great morale and no commitment? Also, being committed restricts freedom of action. The Japanese are a good example. So you would have to rework RBC. You can have totally crappy proficiency and be committed resulting in hordes of casualties, Chinese in Korea, Soviet cavalry charges on the East Front. Will commitment force a player into actions that go against what they deem reasonable?

To me this seems like it has potential to be a can of worms. It will force players to take actions that go against their better judgement if it is to be portrayed historically. If it does not force a player to portray commitment historically then why have it at all? It will only be used when it conveys an advantage and never when it might cause a disadvantage. You will not see the Soviet leadership conduct any multiple army scale attacks in summer 1941 because the leadership is committed to stopping the Germans in that matter. How would you force commitment to do that? I'm very interested to see how you will play this out.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I'm wondering how commitment will square with morale. Can a unit be committed but have poor morale. Or great morale and no commitment? Also, being committed restricts freedom of action. The Japanese are a good example. So you would have to rework RBC. You can have totally crappy proficiency and be committed resulting in hordes of casualties, Chinese in Korea, Soviet cavalry charges on the East Front. Will commitment force a player into actions that go against what they deem reasonable?

To me this seems like it has potential to be a can of worms. It will force players to take actions that go against their better judgement if it is to be portrayed historically. If it does not force a player to portray commitment historically then why have it at all? It will only be used when it conveys an advantage and never when it might cause a disadvantage. You will not see the Soviet leadership conduct any multiple army scale attacks in summer 1941 because the leadership is committed to stopping the Germans in that matter. How would you force commitment to do that? I'm very interested to see how you will play this out.

Commitment would take the place of Proficiency in the morale formula.

Commitment would just be another tool for designers. Until the designer takes action, Commitment and Skill will be the same as the old Proficiency parameter. Only if the designer wants the two parameters to be different will there be any change from the old way.

[Lobster]

Seems like a good way to go. More choices in scenario design is always a good thing.

[StuccoFresco]

I concur.