Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

[carlkay58]

There is both a CPP and leadership penalties for transferring the command of a unit. So there is a cost for the turn of the transferring of commands - although only lasting a turn.

I think the Assault HQ problem is going to require a lot of thought and some tinkering before it can be resolved. Historically the 'Assault HQs' tended to have smaller commands (faster response time for the fewer command elements) and allowed for better handling and coordination with the smaller number of commands. This has always been a questionable decision to INCREASE the command ability of an Assault HQ rather than limit it. Look at the size of the Panzer Groups in 41 and the fact that most Soviet Armies used for an offensive (especially in 41) were only about three or four combat commands. Perhaps the command ability of Assault/Non Assault HQs should be switched with the Assault HQs with the smaller number of command points.

CPP has been a major focus and addition for WitE2 versus the earlier games in the series. It does force the offensive player to rotate forces out of the front and allow them to recover. Faster recovery in Assault HQs is part of that design. I don't see this factor as something that can easily be changed.

It may seem ideal to have leadership ratings take over the size of the command and CPP recovery but you would return to the same features of the earlier games while adding complexity to both programming code and game play. Leadership is already responsible for many things in the game and is already vital in every game function.

The game already has more than enough APs for both sides to pay the costs of switching around leaders. Although the Soviets did this as a matter of planning for their next offensive, the Axis also did some serious leadership changes during the war. Swapping the command of divisions between corps and armies happened very frequently so the AP cost was dropped as being able to cover the AP costs of swapping a large amount of units each turn would make an AP glut almost mandatory.

So my thoughts on this comes down to these points:

1. Swap the command ability of Assault and non-Assault HQs to make the Assault HQs have smaller commands.
2. Decrease the current turnly AP awards as there are too many at this time.
3. I would limit the Axis to four total Assault HQs through 41 and 42. Decrease that to three in 43 and two in 44 and 45.
4. I would limit the Soviets to one Assault HQ in Dec 41 through Oct 42. Increase that to two from Nov 42 to Oct 43. Increase that to three for the rest of the war.

Another thing that could be adjusted is the cost of making an HQ into Assault mode. Possibly increase the penalties for swapping commands or increasing the number of turns the penalties incur. I don't think either of these are necessary but they are further limits on the use of Assault HQs.

[mikael333]

I play against the AI and need all the advantages I can get, especially as the Axis. For me the assault HQs with increased command capacity do not feel right from an immersion and historic perspective. They mean for good results I should assign as many infantry divisions as possible to the panzer armies and the mighty 4. and 9. German armies get largely robbed of their units.

[Great_Ajax]

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.

Although I don't know why the Germans really need Assault HQs, the Soviets definitely went through a learning curve with commanders gaining experience in coordinating more and more units. I don't know what the limits would be but I bet if you follow the development of the Soviet Shock Armies in late 41-43 and then the offensive fronts starting after the Battle of Kursk, you should get an idea of how big and how many Assault HQs the Soviets should have. Perhaps only a number of Shock Army HQs in 41-late 42 and then have their first one or two Front Assault HQs to coincide with Uranus in late 42.

Trey

[AlbertN]

That answer worries me -hugely-.

Pratically it screams of Soviet Power; if we warrant that '44 Leadership of the Soviets is anywhere superior to German '41 or even '44.
The issues Germany have are of production, of logistics, and manpower - all otherwise represented in the game and in a way not related to Assault HQs.

If the issue is that their army is bloated and cumbersome - well that was the case of Soviet army. It always had to work like a boxer, even in '44 at supposed peak of operations, first they had the offensive toward Romania. That stemmed down due to logistics, and wearyness and as it slowed down it started Bagration (that front ammassed supplies and reserves). Righ hook, left hook, with interludes.

Now I believe there is already a 'system' in place for what is explained above, and is that over the course of years the HQ can change their baseline command rating. If the Soviets grow more skilled in managing and cooperating larger formations as time flow (and on that I surely agree) the Command Capacity of a Soviet Army can simply increase some in '43, and some more in '44. Simple as.

[MarkShot]

Interesting how when I raised this a week ago, it was no deal breaker:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5066458

Now, "sudden death" was dealt with via an option, but a scenario edit. But I can see where this is integral to the game engine, and cannot just be dealt with my simply doing some scenario edits.

However, my feeling is if you are a uber-WITE2 mensch, you might just impose house limits on your own side to limit ASSAULT ARMY count, and do most of your army structuring via building good command structures over time. And setting appropriate resource allocations to certain commands. ASSAULT is almost a meta-priority for an entire force.

[MarkShot]

I have carefully reread this whole thread.

I am not historian; just a senior manager.

Large organizations tend to have increasing inertia. So, the fact that ASHQ are big and bad with low inertia seems to be counter the laws of human endeavors.

I would think a more realistic representation of big and bad with low inertia, results from two ends of the spectrum. You form a superior organization (not simply in name), but in terms of talent. So, yes, you can move HQs and divisions, but before they get bonuses, they must meet minimum requirements of command stats, TOE, morale, and experience. So, effectively the ASHQ reinforces the concept of superiority both from the top down and the bottom up.

I suppose this would also mean that you are only going to have 2-3 at most, since to create them, you would need to cherry pick the best of the best.

In my mind this is how real management works. Superior organizations aren't simply designated, they are built carefully by a talented leader. When you have such a leader, and chose the right people, you now have an organization that goes above and beyond. This is different that deliberate attack, since that is just time invested in planning. ASHQ is time invested in assembling and nurturing.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.

Actually, in WitE you could just define different CP limits for different TOEs. Dunno why that was removed in WitE2.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.

Actually, in WitE you could just define different CP limits for different TOEs. Dunno why that was removed in WitE2.

Because the code split with the 1.08.xx WiTE1 patch and its never easy to reintegrate them. So no it wasn't 'removed', never present

[Great_Ajax]

Yeah. This capability was something that Dominic added long after the initial release.

Trey

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

I believe the original concept originated after issues starting popping up with the massively overloaded Soviet Front HQs in WitE with the Bagration scenarios. There needed to be a way for some HQs to deal with the heavy weight of units beyond the normal limits to support major offensive operations. I think it since has merged into a way to prioritize main efforts for both sides with extra benefits.

Actually, in WitE you could just define different CP limits for different TOEs. Dunno why that was removed in WitE2.

Because the code split with the 1.08.xx WiTE1 patch and its never easy to reintegrate them. So no it wasn't 'removed', never present

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...

me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.

I believe we are over complicating the whole Assault HQ situation. There are easy solutions and can be easily programmed. (I am talking about both sides not just the Soviets)

* Limit the amount of units attached to Assault HQ to normal levels. NO increase for being in an Assault HQ from the start of 1941 scenario.

* Ramp up Soviet Assault HQ capabilities over the years. i.e. 1941 Soviet Dec 110%, 1942 120% command limit, 1943 Soviet HQ's can command 130% of command limit, 1944 140% command limit(these are only examples of %'s but give you an idea without butchering 1941 levels. I am sure the power to be can come up with a good percentage to get to their desired results for late game Soviet capabilities.).

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: loki100
Because the code split with the 1.08.xx WiTE1 patch and its never easy to reintegrate them. So no it wasn't 'removed', never present

Aight, but it doesn't sound like something that would be too hard to add. Especially since it's already done in a similar strcuture.

[tyronec]

There are two factors here, Command points and CPP. They are linked but separate.

Command points has an historical basis as to what HQs commanded. With the present set up it works best for Axis in '41 to stuff their Panzer armies with infantry Corps and group the bulk of their troops in 6 assault armies. This is clearly unhistorical, if this command structure worked they would have used it. For the Soviets assault fronts look wrong in summer '41 given their command issues. Similar to Axis they are going to have a few over sized fronts on Assault later in the war. If the Soviets do need to have more command points later in the game it would seem more appropriate to increase command capacity for some/all of the HQs they have rather than to have the Assault HQ bonus.

CPP is an abstraction of the game. There are two combat systems running in parallel, one that has casualties primarily caused by weapons which is historically based. The second that says a 2:1 victory is a win, has multipliers for terrain and fortification, leadership factors, CPP and so on is all an invention of the game system. The level of CPP gain has to come from trial and error to create game balance and it has a particular impact on the offensive/defensive relative strength.

[karonagames]

Assault HQs are not the sole cause of the "woes" that are afflicting WITE2. Fundamentally this game is about gaining and losing hexes and how far the game varies from the historical rate at which hexes were gained and lost. Most of the changes to the WITE1 system have made it harder to gain, and easier to lose hexes.

The Logistics system combined with the fatigue and CPP gain and recovery system means there is less offensive power compared to WITE1 to force retreats from hexes,Then the new terrain rules,the weather, the delay rules together with logistics system producing less movement points, means you can't occupy the hex if you force the retreat.

Once the Axis lose momentum, usually about turn 8, it is really hard to maintain a rate of advance or create outflanking threats that force retreats. Once the logistics collapse occurs at around turn 12, it is even harder.

The ability to prevent the loss of hexes during the Blizzard is hardwired into the new rules WITE2 has introduced, but they are definitely not tuned to allow a player to achieve anything close to historical levels.

Looks like I am back to playing WITE1.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: karonagames

...
The Logistics system combined with the fatigue and CPP gain and recovery system means there is less offensive power compared to WITE1 to force retreats from hexes,Then the new terrain rules,the weather, the delay rules together with logistics system producing less movement points, means you can't occupy the hex if you force the retreat.

Once the Axis lose momentum, usually about turn 8, it is really hard to maintain a rate of advance or create outflanking threats that force retreats. Once the logistics collapse occurs at around turn 12, it is even harder.

...

well quite simply your logistics system shouldn't collapse in T8 unless you are doing far better than historical ... . And you can both lose and regain momentum, it just it takes some serious planning and force re-allocation to achieve.

In both my current HtH games I've played the summer with mobile units usually over 40 and infantry at least at 12 (usually more), so its not my potential to move that is the issue. If I get a gap, I can readily exploit it - that is where the problems then start

[karonagames]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...

me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.[quote}

So are the problems/woes enough for you to stop playing the game or not? My interpretation of the problems is not solely based on Assault HQs. Yours is.

Fair enough.

[loki100]

well I can only speak for myself.

What I don't see:

a) an unrealistically harsh logistical chain on the axis, which is why I'm not readily convinced that is the problem
b) I can stop high Soviet admin movement, just run broad low level GA-interdiction over key sectors, remember that anything stops admin moves. Ju-88s with lots of bombs do a good job here - at least in clear terrain.
c) being hindered by raw combat power

So to me, all the tools for a standard German attack are there, I can break a line (I might need to use an entire infantry corps ), I can exploit

What I do see:

when I exploit it all goes t*ts up, regiments are doomed, divisions are vulnerable, you need to use a complete fresh Pzr corps to pocket a division.

So the issue is the Soviets can match my combat power - which is where I personally think the issue lies. There maybe more - this game is insanely complex and balancing over the HtH and vs AI community is not easy. But for the moment, I'd happily play a Soviet player who opted not to use assault fronts in 1941 (say 1 in December) and see where that goes. If their position fell apart due to axis mobility, then I'd be equally happy to relax that.

One advantage of informal house rules, you can amend with experience.

What I do have is 5+ years experience of playing and testing. I've seen this game in many variants and as major rules come in and get refined. The situation we are all facing as of now, is new, but so is the widespread adoptiong by Soviet players of assault fronts right from the start of 1941

edit: One of the many things I do to earn money is evaluation of public policy decisions - one key element is to start looking for something big that changed recently when trying to build a cause-effect chain ... hence my current focus on assault fronts.

edit 2: I'm not going to start any more 1941 GC HtH without the constraint above in place. Since I have 2 active HtH games and a rather fun vs AI one at the moment, I'm not going to start any more till I clear that lot. One of the HtH is going to go past the Soviet initiative change sometime in 42 or 43, the other I fear won't pass the Jan 42 sudden death threshold. The AI game will probably come down to the 1944 victory test vs Axis HWM.

[Zemke]

I think dropping the primacy concept of Assault HQs to generate CCP is what should happen, and moving the game towards the existing concepts of experience, fatigue and logistics, but I realize there has been too much water under the programing bridge at this point to go back.

I do agree the current logistics system is too easy on the Germans in 41, and THAT should play more of a role. I have never read in any accounts by German Commanders, that the Heer was held up on the road to Moscow because they ran out of Combat Preparation Points. I have read due to no fuel, lack of ammo, bad roads, high casualties, terrible weather, fanatical Russian resistance. There seem to be many trucks, too easy to get fuel, rail lines are too easy to convert and bring forward in 1941.

It is also far too easy for the Germans to fill up depleted divisions in the winter of 1941/42. I do not recall, (may be wrong) reading where the Germans were regularly adding replacements to depleted units pulled off the line during that first winter, bring them up to near 100% TOE. I mean they could not get enough ammo and fuel to units much less men, to say nothing of winter equipment.

The German Army of 1941 was the most experienced, combat proven military organization in the West at that time. It had better leadership up and down the chain of command from NCO to Army Group, it had a doctrine of Combined Arms (not perfected, but superior to everyone else at the time), and it had been tested in combat in two major operations, Poland and France by the time they invade the USSR. The German military would never again be as proficient at the art of War as it was on the morning of June 22, 1941. I would argue the Germans should be even a higher experience level going into Barbarossa, and that the logistics, weather and casualties should be what "balances" the game out, because that is what happens to the Germans. Not Soviet Ast HQs, or German Ast HQ that generate CCP. As I stated before CCP is a totally artificial creation that has yet to be defined sufficiently that it meets the "oh yeah, that makes historical sense", to me at least.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: karonagames

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...

me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.[quote}

So are the problems/woes enough for you to stop playing the game or not? My interpretation of the problems is not solely based on Assault HQs. Yours is.

Fair enough.

Assault HQ's is the major culprit to the current woes. I believe it is a pretty easy fix & Loki's recommendation is a good step forward but the problem I have with that is the command limit of Assault HQ's is too large, for both sides. A great many of the other items that have raised their head in the game are tied to Assault HQ's. Just like what I do in the field of networking you fix "one" thing and look for the cause and effect first. You don't shotgun a resolution to more than one thing at a time. I am pretty sure fixing Assault HQ's will take care of some other items.

Now having said that this link concerns me greatly. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5071970 I know this is an AI game but just look at those numbers. The truth points to itself here in those numbers. Even an AI game where the Germans are doing well is falling short. Now take those number for a H2H game and this scenario of a German chance is abysmal.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

I think dropping the primacy concept of Assault HQs to generate CCP is what should happen, and moving the game towards the existing concepts of experience, fatigue and logistics, but I realize there has been too much water under the programing bridge at this point to go back.

I do agree the current logistics system is too easy on the Germans in 41, and THAT should play more of a role. I have never read in any accounts by German Commanders, that the Heer was held up on the road to Moscow because they ran out of Combat Preparation Points. I have read due to no fuel, lack of ammo, bad roads, high casualties, terrible weather, fanatical Russian resistance. There seem to be many trucks, too easy to get fuel, rail lines are too easy to convert and bring forward in 1941.

It is also far too easy for the Germans to fill up depleted divisions in the winter of 1941/42. I do not recall, (may be wrong) reading where the Germans were regularly adding replacements to depleted units pulled off the line during that first winter, bring them up to near 100% TOE. I mean they could not get enough ammo and fuel to units much less men, to say nothing of winter equipment.

The German Army of 1941 was the most experienced, combat proven military organization in the West at that time. It had better leadership up and down the chain of command from NCO to Army Group, it had a doctrine of Combined Arms (not perfected, but superior to everyone else at the time), and it had been tested in combat in two major operations, Poland and France by the time they invade the USSR. The German military would never again be as proficient at the art of War as it was on the morning of June 22, 1941. I would argue the Germans should be even a higher experience level going into Barbarossa, and that the logistics, weather and casualties should be what "balances" the game out, because that is what happens to the Germans. Not Soviet Ast HQs, or German Ast HQ that generate CCP. As I stated before CCP is a totally artificial creation that has yet to be defined sufficiently that it meets the "oh yeah, that makes historical sense", to me at least.

I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.

[jubjub]

I have played both sides and my experience is a bit different.

@#2 para = Logistics is tearing me apart in my current game. (Even in my earlier games Logistics were eating me up) My casualty rate has skyrocketed, most units don't have full ammo or fuel. Keep killing any type of logistics for the Germans and the Germans will be down to bow and arrows that they make from wood on the land.... now to find out where I can produce the string from for the bow....

@#3 Para = to fill up TOE on a German Division that starts with a 49 TOE is 3-4 turns(still was in low 90's when I needed to move it forward). I know, I just did it with one of my Divisions that got murdered during fighting and I am still semi close to western Europe supply. That is "not" easy when you are also trying to supply your Army.

From my experience, ID and motorized divisions can typically be refit to 90% or more in 1-2 turns if they are placed on a depot with an HQ boost. This is more on a static front though. Panzer divisions take time get back above 90% TOE even refitting in the reserve.