Stalingrad: Nightmare on The Volga

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: bcgames


The Soviets are proving to be severe "anti-game engine" forces...regiments that are really battalions...corps that are really divisions...no corps HQs (disbanded)...and HANDS FULL of separate units under army and front HQs control. The game engine is designed to support WWII...except the USSR in 1942. We are working some ad-hockery HQ structures to make the Soviet side work easier for the player than the historical reality--which would be unplayable for the casual gamer. It'll work...but man! Ain't no way to organize an army--or a game engine. Oh those Russians...

I feel your pain. I found the ragtag nature of Red Army units that had spent some time in the field, subject to eye watering rates of attrition, both a research challenge and also a lesson about why hardcoding too much stuff to the unit "size" can be a bad idea

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek
...hardcoding too much stuff to the unit "size" can be a bad idea

True...especially for the Soviets in 1942. The size is a graphical issue (minor) and a stacking issue (major). We solve the problem leaning heavily towards the stacking issue; the graphical representation of echelon issue won't be an issue for those who just want to play the game. For those that get the problem? Their concerns are justified. I don't know if expending coding energy to put an X or an XX or an XXX above a unit counter is a priority at this point for the game engine...we're going Western Front after Stalingrad.

Players! Should two guys spend their time re-making/re-coding unit size graphic assignments above a unit counter? To match a title to make what is a division-equivalent look like a corps cuz it's called a corps...but is really just a division in the eyes of the average game player?

What do YOU think is the correct way to go? Why?

[BletchleyGeek]

Wouldn't be just a matter to changing the mapping between "unit size" and "stacking points" from a hardcoded parameter to something that is part of the scenario data?

[bcgames]

There's another component in the equation...divisions can be attached/detached between corps in the same army in the Stalingrad game engine. So...I created Operational Group HQs units (OG) to represent the "corps HQs" that the Soviets temporarily discarded in 1942. At least two historical examples of this adhoc organization were used by the Soviets during the 1942 campaign to solve for the lack of corps HQs (OG Chubisov and OG Chuikov). Under this model, a Soviet tank "corps" (divison) can be transferred between OGs but cannot have divisions attached/detached...cuz a tank corps is comprised of brigades...it is not a corps HQs.

The Soviets created this cognitive dissonance with their WWII nameage. I think we have the least bad solution to this Soviet-created anomaly. Complicated rules on organizations will not be warmly embraced by casual game players (me). But I could be wrong.

Knowing this additional parameter (attach/detach divisions between corps), how would you solve the cognitive dissonance problem?

[BletchleyGeek]

Well, you don't have to worry about Rifle Corps

A similar issue you would have in late 1943 and early 1944 with the Germans and their Division and Corps "abteilungs".

How about adding an attribute in units data called "max attach size" that limits the maximum attachment size? That would be by default division for German Corps and Soviet Rifle Corps, and could be set in the scenario editor as brigade for Soviet Tank and Mech Corps. That would be a pretty straightforward thing to add, offering backwards compatibility (can be set by default to a safe value when loading the data), and adds one simple comparison to the check to see if one unit can be attached to another one (no expensive computation). I think that is better and more robust than what other games do (like relying on a specific naming convention).

That would be an easy and quick fix that can come in handy with other funny organisations (e.g. British armoured bdes containing regiments etc.)

I think also that getting over that cognitive dissonance is part of the Eastern Front rite of passage.

[Okayrun3254]

Is this how the units will look in the game? If so, I think the description of the Russian, Tank Corps, regiments, Tank brigades all look fine.

Frank

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Alrighty then...

At long last I think I have everything together for the first scenario of the Ghost Division Campaign -- 11th Panzer Division's Battles on the Chir River in December 1942. These scenarios will used to test the campaign game engine which is nearing completion.

In retrospect? I should have chosen a campaign with a easier order of battle. The Chir River Battles are the hardest OBs I've ever tackled. I have spent at least $500-750 on resource materials and a hundred hours or so trying to sort things out. After all that, I'm very confident--I'm somewhere in Russia in a ballpark--if they have one. I've squeezed the last juices from Glantz' map book on the topic and I think the buck will stop there.

In building the OBs for this game I was surprised at the number of Guards Mortar (Katyusha) units there were...so...if you missed my favorite rendition of the Katyusha song...here it is again!

Katyusha Dance

Katyusha Rockets

Onwards!

[bcgames]

The Soviet tank corps on-map counter would have a division symbol on it instead of a corps.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek
...hardcoding too much stuff to the unit "size" can be a bad idea

True...especially for the Soviets in 1942. The size is a graphical issue (minor) and a stacking issue (major). We solve the problem leaning heavily towards the stacking issue; the graphical representation of echelon issue won't be an issue for those who just want to play the game. For those that get the problem? Their concerns are justified. I don't know if expending coding energy to put an X or an XX or an XXX above a unit counter is a priority at this point for the game engine...we're going Western Front after Stalingrad.

Players! Should two guys spend their time re-making/re-coding unit size graphic assignments above a unit counter? To match a title to make what is a division-equivalent look like a corps cuz it's called a corps...but is really just a division in the eyes of the average game player?

What do YOU think is the correct way to go? Why?

My humble opinion is that a historical game should show historical designations. So a Soviet corp is a corp not a division symbol wise. I'm an older gamer and history is paramount for my game play style. If you need to re-code just rip off the Europa regimental equivalent rules.

I agree. Things have to be as historical as possible.

[bcgames]

Do you want to be able to attach/detach Soviet Tank Corps between operational groups or do you want XXX above the tank corps counter? I can do one or the other. The Code is locked.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Do you want to be able to attach/detach Soviet Tank Corps between operational groups or do you want XXX above the tank corps counter? I can do one or the other. The Code is locked.

Well I see you were asking Wodin this question - Hopefully you don't mind if I also reply.

Considering (as far as my memory allows) the Soviet Tank and Mechanized Corps including reinforcements were not moved around much to differing HQ's, I would use the XXX designation.

You could break them down into brigades and skip the Corp designation and have 3 brigades instead.

Or, if you plan on doing more East Front games, bite the bullet and unlock the code and adjust it to allow for the Soviet unit size differences.

My least favorite is to band aid the code and display as a division. Please don't take this as criticism, I'm just an historical gamer type.

I'm afraid I support this view. If the scenarios are short enough then I can't see the problem of not being able to attach to another formation.

If you are starting 23rd July then the first Corps formations are attached to the newly formed Tanks Armies. (1st/4th) I'm not sure the Soviets ever attempted attaching Tank Corps to the 62nd or 64th Armies defending the approaches to Stalingrad? Maybe they did?

By the way I've followed TIK as well. Apart from his mangled pronunciation of German names he does a great job. However depicting Corps as Divisions is a big no no for me. He does this as well. Its 13th Tank Corps not 13th Tank Division....

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC
You could break them down into brigades and skip the Corp designation and have 3 brigades instead.

The unit in question is the Tank Corps HQ unit; the game is brigade/regiment level. In the attached image you can see the 22nd Tank Corps HQ and its subordinate units. With a HQs unit above the brigades the player can allocate fuel, ammo, replacements and equipment directly to the 22nd Tank Corps. Take away the HQs and all those supply items have to be issued to everybody in the 4th Tank Army in order to get supplies to 22nd TC.

Hmmm...I just thought of something...

[bcgames]

Success!

The XXX over the counter and the term "corps" in the unit information pop-up is determined by the designation in the Army Tab of the editor. The editor HQ tab determines the relationship between organizations for purposes of supply flow, regimental integrity, and attachment/detachment eligibility. So... I cheated and designated 22nd Tank Corps HQs a division HQ. Tested this in-game to see if attachment/detachment works and it does.

Yeah but it sez division on the task org panel!

Yep.

[bcgames]

Okeedokie...back to the bunker...

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[bcgames]

It's good to have a matured hacker/modder mind-set.

[wodin]

Can't you use colour coding and unit highlight to show units subbed to a certain HQ. SO here we use yellow bar for 22nd Tank Corps. But we use the actual units designation name across it. SO for 51st Motorcycle Bn we would have yellow bar for 22nd Tank Corps and 51st Motorcycle Bn written on yellow bar. As for unit highlight, player double clicks on any HQ unit and all it's sub formations are highlighted and any higher HQ's highlighted in different colour.

[bcgames]

There are too many HQs for each organization to have its own distinctive color band. Axis units are color coded by corps; Soviets are coded by army. The label (i.e. 22 Tank) shows the player which units share organizational integrity benefits in attack and defense.

[wodin]

I'd still rather have the name of the actual unit than the name of it's higher HQ.