Stand fast or manoeuvre? StB EvK (Axis) vs. Elma666(Soviets)

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

The answers will be in the aircraft .csv download from the editor from that scenario. There are columns for when the aircraft can be exported (from date, to date) and limits on how many can be exported. If it is largely unchanged from the same sort of scenario data in the 1941-5 campaign the the answer is probably the window for exports for Rumania closes at an earlier date for most aircraft compared to the other allies, and they have probably received the maximum number that could be exported to them anyway.

Also if the scenario data for the one you are playing is the same as the one for the campaign game (see below) then the F4 fighter will only be exported to Hungary and never to Rumania

In the picture above I have painted in red all those exports I would like to avoid. This assumes that number of single engine fighters is a choke point for the Germans. As such I would be quite glad no fighters were being exported to Rumania.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Thanks for the explanation. I have 300ish single engine fighters and 200 two engine fighters in the pool for Germany while Rumania has old models and not even enough of them. More game engine flexibility or player control would be nice (preferably the first).
Same with Tiger tanks, 80 in the pool while I am short of medium tanks. Any reasonable army manager would give them to units to fill in for the heavier medium tank models.

[xhoel]

Regarding the grammar, "Rang x wurde zum y befördert" is the usual form but "Rang x wurde befördert zum y" is possible as well. This being said, I am not that much a grammar expert, but from my language feeling it is fine, and it is quite reliable.

Cheers, thanks for letting me know. I had a feeling it sounded wrong but if you say it is fine, I guess it is so.

I already have T13 (my opponent is really quick, I can only recommend playing against Elma666), and noted the "sudden morale drop" phenomenon. I had successfully lifted an infantry unit to 82 morale and it dropped to 79 in one turn. Supply was fine, although it went from 60% TOE to 100% in one turn. I need to find a new Goebbels for motivational speeches, to bad we shot the old one.

It is happening quite often in my game. Most of my units are 72-73 Morale and I am seeing them gravitate towards the NM of 70. Very strange that there is no note of this in the manual at all.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

...although it went from 60% TOE to 100% in one turn. I need to find a new Goebbels for motivational speeches, to bad we shot the old one.

It is happening quite often in my game. Most of my units are 72-73 Morale and I am seeing them gravitate towards the NM of 70. Very strange that there is no note of this in the manual at all.

Some of the patch notes I thought I remember talking about morale/xp dilution from replacements. At least I had always told others that because it is only partial dilution it makes sense to prioritise your replacements for your best units. Finding it again is more difficult - but I was sure it has been discussed.

[xhoel]

@Tele: I have never heard or read anything about morale being diluted from replacements and that doesn't apply to this cases. I am seeing morale gravitate towards NM for units that have not received an influx of new recruits and have been holding stable sectors of the front.

I know that the influx of new recruits reduces general experience of the unit but it is not by a large amount. I remember during the summer of 41' I had depleted Infantry divisions that were sitting at 50-60% of their TOEs. Once reinforced, experience dropped by 10-12 points which makes sense and is realistic however I have never seen something similar happen with morale.

[spotlight7]

It depends a lot on the reinforcements. German infantry units in the Bulge were

often described as armed mobs for many of the newly formed or rebuilt divisions.



The infantry had learned to depend on assault guns. A shortage of them in

many infantry divisions resulted in very poor results for infantry attacks.


The 106th American infantry division newly arrived in combat was greatly inferior to divisions like the 1st Infantry

division. Part pf the problem was that veteran combat units had often acquired a great deal of "extra" equipment.


When the 106th took over the positions of the 1st Infantry division, they noted firing positions

for machine guns numbered six times that of their TOE. The 1st infantry division also had two

battalions of self propelled anti tank guns instead of the single battalion for most divisions.


The 28th Infantry Division lost about 6,000 men fighting in forest combat during one nine day battle. It did

receive a large numbers of replacements, however, the combat value of the division was not nearly the same.


Combat units taking heavy losses often are a fraction of their former combat value for

some time. Replacements are rarely the same combat value for morale or experience.

[Brandon_37]

nearly all of those would be infantry right? The division would probably be like 8,000 artillery/support men why didn't they just disband it?

[spotlight7]

They did not disband the 106th Infantry division after two regiments surrendered during the Battle of the

Bulge. The 28th was also rebuilt IMHO because the Army did not want to admit the result of their attack.


Neither Hitler nor the American Army command wanted to admit the results of their choices.


Hitler had the divisions of the Sixth Army rebuilt after Stalingrad using soldiers

returning from leave and men returning from hospitals to reform the lost divisions.

[TheLysander]

It looks nice on paper to have a lot divisions on the front. Even if those divisions are at half strength or non-existent.

[Brandon_37]

You are probably right. It would be bad for morale if the headlines said "3 divisions mauled in France!" instead of "German offensive halted!".

[EwaldvonKleist]

Adding to this discussion, in his study "Fighting power" Martin van Crefeld covers the different ways replacements were added to US divisions and German divisions in WW2.
The US system was to constantly replace losses with new men, treating the manpower as a resource you simply refill. Unfortunately this meant that the soldier-soldier relations in the units had no time to form and unit cohesion suffered, the system neglected the psychological needs of the soldiers.
The Wehrmacht system was to replace the losses in intervals and pull out formations (from batallions to entire divisions, depending on the situation) entirely for this process. Therefore the units had time to develop cohesion. IIRC they also tried to integrate groups of people who trained together as a whole in units in order to maintain the formed human bonds.


Especially at the later stages of the war, the Wehrmacht fielded allot of divisions, instead of keeping the existing ones at full strenght. IMO a big waste, because having a large number of units (likely) increases the share of men in staff instead of fighting positions, and increases the number of high qualified personnel in command positions.

[EwaldvonKleist]

T14, 18.02.1943 after Axis operations
Operation Eisbaden (ice swimming) is a success with two Soviet divisions encircled and useful defensive positions taken. I continue the attacks in the Rshew area just to do something. An unfortunate misclick loses 30 Stukas-I wanted to bomb the hexagon East which was not intercepted, but clicked on the wrong place. I hope this consolation to all the older WitE players here-it happens to young people in their twenties too! I was so close to 100% TOE in my Stuka groups

Two counterattacks lead to Soviet shatters-I am positively surprised by them. Soviet OOB falls again (for the last time?) below 6 Megamen.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
An unfortunate misclick loses 30 Stukas-I wanted to bomb the hexagon East which was not intercepted, but clicked on the wrong place. I hope this consolation to all the older WitE players here-it happens to young people in their twenties too! I was so close to 100% TOE in my Stuka groups

I still put the blame on interface design which was not (could not?) be updated.

As for silly operational names there is no excuse! [:-][:D]

[EwaldvonKleist]

T15, 25.02.1943 before Axis operations
Soviet attack from Leningrad to Rostov with moderate, but increasing rate. An invariance of all the attacks is the massive Soviet final CV inflation and the mediocre performance of Axis leaders, even though they have better stats. A ray of hope is the success of Operation Eisbaden, two units will be annihilated soon.
The Soviets are very active with recon flights and easily lose five times their production.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I still put the blame on interface design which was not (could not?) be updated.

I think the WitE is fine for the on-map action. Misclicks happen, if you want to avoid them you need confirmation prompts and they are annoying for routine tasks like ground bombing. The WitE GUI deficiencies are in the fields administration, having information next to the buttons for execution and click work minimization.

As for silly operational names there is no excuse!

I am not a native speaker-so I can blame google translator! In German it all made sense.

[John B.]

"In German it all made sense."

Isn't that what Born, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger said about quantum mechanics? [:D]

[EwaldvonKleist]

ORIGINAL:
Isn't that what Born, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger said about quantum mechanics? [:D]

In German Quantum mechanics are very easy to understand, it is taught in highschool here. Only the translation into English suddenly turns this into undergraduate level complexity. Scientists are baffled.

Due to RL demands I have not found much time to continue the game-I think I can finish another turn next weekend. The current turn requires potentially tough decisions. The Soviets are making more attacks than I can contain, especially if I want to continue with offensives on my own. I don't think I am at risk of losing units yet but every hex lost to an attack means destroyed forts, Soviet wins for Guards and morale and reduction of my precious infantry morale. So I am alarmed by the (not unexpectedly) raising attack frequency.

[EwaldvonKleist]

@Telemecus: Regarding the situation on the Crimea, do you know from your wargaming^2 how landing zones are if the Soviets own Kerch but Feodosia and Sevastopol are still in Axis hands?
I am asking for a Rumanian Corps commander.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

@Telemecus: Regarding the situation on the Crimea, do you know from your wargaming^2 how landing zones are if the Soviets own Kerch but Feodosia and Sevastopol are still in Axis hands?
I am asking for a Rumanian Corps commander.

Spent a long time trying to work this one out by port seas of control. And then just decided to get the 1942 scenario out, let the Soviets capture Kerch and Axis Sevastopol and just press end turn many times for the ports to repair a bit. This is the result. Here Sevastopol is on 69% damage and Kerch is on 63%. Here Kerch is size 3, I think in other scenarios it is size 2? Both are repaired enough to be functioning ports but if I believe the damage still affects sea control. Everywhere in the Azov sea can be invaded - not too surprisingly. But the Soviet side could invade as far as two hexes east of Sevastopol. As Sevastopol repairs I expect that to change.



In this case of course you could use bombing to slow or even halt the repairs.

[Telemecus]

Attached is the test file I used - although would need to press end turn for each side another 23 times to see the ports without damage.