What's the feeling on CPP? And Assault HQ?

[MarkShot]

Until just recently, I was playing WITW which as you probably know lacks CPP.

I can say that the feeling of CPP is very different. You want to pull units off the line or advance up to behind the line; not such a big deal in WITW. But it seems very noticeable with WITE-2 and Assault HQs. I know people were critical as it slowed break throughs and encirclements.

Myself, I feel it adds another level of strategy. Because you are more likely to ask how many units do I need on the front line, and not parking most of your strength there. Also, it seems to increase the value of RESERVE dynamics, since now RESERVE can do more than cover multiple HEXs or add strength in depth.

You expert players, what are your thoughts?

I also have a question about ASSAULT HQ. I understand what they give you. However, they take away building up defense. So, how are you going to use this during the campaign as both sides experience an extended period of falling back? As I haven't played much, my guess would be to let regular units build up fort levels and then occupy the hexes with units under an ASSAULT HQ when the enemy arrives.

What are you doing with this mechanic?

Thanks.

[Mehring]

Not an expert player but my feelings regarding CPP and Assault HQ's are to remove them from the game. They are gamey and quite artificial, a sad detraction from all the many improvements of v2 over v1.

The historical effects they are supposed to create could easily be replicated by increasing the effects of fatigue, lack of supply and low ToE integrity while combat preparation could be gained for units to attack specific hexes in a similar way to para drops. The concept of units running around the map exhausting themselves, depleting their supplies and damaging their elements while maintaining "CPP" (which according to the manual represents these same factors), then gaining a bonus for a combat they never even envisaged at the beginning of the turn, is deeply flawed.

Another player made the excellent suggestion that you should have to expend AP to obtain level 4 supply and thereby stockpile above 100%. Perhaps HQ's with this supply level might also have an increased capacity.

With the implementation of these measures I see a far more realistic depiction of the same effects.

[Zovs]

Not an expert player but my feelings regarding CPP and Assault HQ's are to remove them from the game. They are gamey and quite artificial, a sad detraction from all the many improvements of v2 over v1.

The historical effects they are supposed to create could easily be replicated by increasing the effects of fatigue, lack of supply and low ToE integrity while combat preparation could be gained for units to attack specific hexes in a similar way to para drops. The concept of units running around the map exhausting themselves, depleting their supplies and damaging their elements while maintaining "CPP" (which according to the manual represents these same factors), then gaining a bonus for a combat they never even envisaged at the beginning of the turn, is deeply flawed.

Another player made the excellent suggestion that you should have to expend AP to obtain level 4 supply and thereby stockpile above 100%. Perhaps HQ's with this supply level might also have an increased capacity.

With the implementation of these measures I see a far more realistic depiction of the same effects.

Totally disagree with your "feelings" and opinion on this matter. CPP works quite well and gives the player the feedback that you can't run a division week after week fighting and moving and expect its combat values to remain the same, as when it was fresh and rested. Fatigue, lack of supply, low TOE are already in place and this is another layer on top of that.

CPP is not deeply flawed for this game and is an excellent addition.

[Jango32]

It's something you have to live with in WitE 2. It's not going away, at most it will get fine tuned in the future like it has already been.

I think the current CPP loss rules work well. You no longer lose all motorised spearhead momentum because of trash 20% TOE units acting as speedbumps to drain 50% CPP, ammo and cause damage as you brush them aside. I don't play with temporary motorisation so I think it's fine as it is.

[Commanderski]

Totally disagree with your "feelings" and opinion on this matter. CPP works quite well and gives the player the feedback that you can't run a division week after week fighting and moving and expect its combat values to remain the same, as when it was fresh and rested. Fatigue, lack of supply, low TOE are already in place and this is another layer on top of that.

CPP is not deeply flawed for this game and is an excellent addition.

+1 Totally agree.

[Mehring]

CPP ... gives the player the feedback that you can't run a division week after week fighting and moving and expect its combat values to remain the same

Fatigue, damaged/missing elements and lack of supplies degrade a unit's combat value. The feedback is given in the CV, which results from the fatigue and supply status visible on the counter and ToE % visible from a right click on the counter. CPP does not give any feedback regarding these conditions, it operates in an independent parrallel universe.

Fatigue, lack of supply, low TOE are already in place and this is another layer on top of that.

but-

"23.2 Combat preparation points (CPP) reflect the advantage of
allowing units to rest and plan before they enter combat."

Which means that CPP duplicate the fatigue function while accumulating independently of whether or not the unit in question is actually fatigued. Or is it not possible to have a unit that is all of depleted, low on supply and badly fatigued but with high CPP? That is to say a unit that is not combat ready which nevertheless has high CPP? You may like the feature, but it is not logical or realistic in any way, it's an ahistorical game device.

As for planning, just by way of example, you cannot realistically plan to march into enemy territory and attack a unit you previously didn't even know was there, or the terrain it occupies. In terms of the planning it purports to represent the CPP system is absurdly flexible and again, unrealistic. The paradrop prep mechanism for an attack against a known enemy position could give realistic preparation points for nearby units that designate it as a target hex. Supplies can be hoarded for preparation for an advance but units running around the map with enhanced combat values for nothing in particular and everything in general adds a layer only of non-realism.

Every mechanism that could, from the standpoint of realism, represent the things CPP, Assault Status and the "super depot" purport to represent, is already in game. Tweek the effect of fatigue; use assault prep; use AP paid level 4 supply status to accumulate > 100% supplies etc etc. There was no need for "another layer", just refinement of what was already there.

[Mehring]

It's something you have to live with in WitE 2. It's not going away, at most it will get fine tuned in the future like it has already been.

Back in the early post release days of v1 I argued for the depiction of roads, single/dual rail track differentiation, prep time to make para drops, granualar weather and a host of other things, some of which appeared in v2 in a more developed form than I ever envisaged them. So it may take some time but things do change substantially.

[TallBlondJohn]

IMO the purpose of CPP is to produce offensives running out of steam in game, especially Soviet ones. In WITE1 I once went from Stalingrad to Berlin with barely a pause. But with CPP, the Red Army in particular goes in surges and while echelon tactics help, they don't produce a continuous drive. Which matches history well.

So in my head-canon, CPP isn't fatigue or expenditure of supply, its... something else. MarkShot's evolution of the Soviet corps question got me thinking about this (see his 'Transitioning to WITE-2 Red Army?' thread). Throughout the war the Soviets struggled to organise and sustain their great mass of men and equipment, and the lack of 'tail' in their units meant most units could only sustain offensive action for a week or so (see the Handbook on USSR Military Forces in the 'US Army (official) description of Red Army Org during WWII' thread). CPP captures this - say two turns into an operation the unit is tired but not exhausted, and may still have supplies, but not the tail to get it to where it is needed. Most of all its plain disorganised by combat and needs to be sorted out - everybody found, de-briefed, re-supplied. German and late war Western armies were very good at this, but they had the officer corps, doctrine, procedures, organic transport and sophisticated communications to do it, allowing combat operations to be sustained for longer before a pause.

CPP had its issues when first implemented, but for me it really works now in generating 'feel'; the ways the Ost Heer and the Red Army fundamentally differ and how that shapes their operations. Much better than the old Assault mechanic or something like disruption in board games, which is a binary implementation of the same concept.

Of course if you have fallen out of love with CPP you wont get that feel and it just becomes a hassle, but it does work for me and I don't think its totally artificial.

[Mehring]

IMO the purpose of CPP is to produce offensives running out of steam in game, especially Soviet ones. In WITE1 I once went from Stalingrad to Berlin with barely a pause. But with CPP, the Red Army in particular goes in surges and while echelon tactics help, they don't produce a continuous drive. Which matches history well.

So in my head-canon, CPP isn't fatigue or expenditure of supply, its... something else. MarkShot's evolution of the Soviet corps question got me thinking about this (see his 'Transitioning to WITE-2 Red Army?' thread). Throughout the war the Soviets struggled to organise and sustain their great mass of men and equipment, and the lack of 'tail' in their units meant most units could only sustain offensive action for a week or so (see the Handbook on USSR Military Forces in the 'US Army (official) description of Red Army Org during WWII' thread). CPP captures this - say two turns into an operation the unit is tired but not exhausted, and may still have supplies, but not the tail to get it to where it is needed. Most of all its plain disorganised by combat and needs to be sorted out - everybody found, de-briefed, re-supplied. German and late war Western armies were very good at this, but they had the officer corps, doctrine, procedures, organic transport and sophisticated communications to do it, allowing combat operations to be sustained for longer before a pause.

CPP had its issues when first implemented, but for me it really works now in generating 'feel'; the ways the Ost Heer and the Red Army fundamentally differ and how that shapes their operations. Much better than the old Assault mechanic or something like disruption in board games, which is a binary implementation of the same concept.

Of course if you have fallen out of love with CPP you wont get that feel and it just becomes a hassle, but it does work for me and I don't think its totally artificial.

What I don't like about CPP is that I can't justify it historically by the description of what it represents in the rules. However, much of what you're saying about what I'd call unit cohesion, connected to what is essentially a technical/cultural backwardness prevelent in the Soviet Union, makes sense to me as something that should be represented in game. I don't see, though, how it applies differently in game to the Axis apart from differing limits of Assault HQ's or how it impedes sustaining a Soviet ofensive more than an Axis one. The Assault HQ mechanism, on the face of it looks specifically designed to maintain one, even if limiting its scope to a given number of Fronts.

Then there's the question of whether this deficiency in the Soviet command and control isn't already represented or could not be so with the other mechanisms in the game, as I've suggested. At a loss of, IIRC, 1 CPP per hex, this cohesion is also carried around the map through enemy territory by either side without regard to loss of cohesion through breakdowns and fuel runouts, bottle necks spreading out columns and all the other things that can screw up the cohesion of a formation. But I like your basic premise so if you've nothing better to do, by all means try to convince me.

[Zovs]

Play both sides for at least 30+ turns and you’ll see how CPP effect things historically.

[MarkShot]

Excuse me ... no one addressed my question:

I also have a question about ASSAULT HQ. I understand what they give you. However, they take away building up defense. So, how are you going to use this during the campaign as both sides experience an extended period of falling back? As I haven't played much, my guess would be to let regular units build up fort levels and then occupy the hexes with units under an ASSAULT HQ when the enemy arrives.

What are you doing with this mechanic?

Thanks.

[FortTell]

Excuse me ... no one addressed my question:

I also have a question about ASSAULT HQ. I understand what they give you. However, they take away building up defense. So, how are you going to use this during the campaign as both sides experience an extended period of falling back? As I haven't played much, my guess would be to let regular units build up fort levels and then occupy the hexes with units under an ASSAULT HQ when the enemy arrives.

What are you doing with this mechanic?

Thanks.

Just have a nearby Army reporting to a non-assault HQ (or even Stavka) with plenty of construction SUs and swap units from the assault HQ to the non-assault one when you need to dig in. Just one of three units in a hex switched will already start digging lv 2/3 forts, and the other still in the assault HQ will handle the combat duties.

[MarkShot]

Thanks, FortTell. That was my guess, but I had not tried it yet.

[Joch1955]

I like the idea and concept of CPP, although its actual impact in game is subtle. When looking at my units, I tend to focus on combat power, movement allowance and supply, all of which determine if you will attack, retreat or just stay put. Low or high CPP will have an impact on those decisions and seems to make the game flow more realistically.

Assault HQ is a different beast. As I recall, it only impacts command ability and I don't feel it has a big impact whether you are using an Assault or regular HQ.

[Mehring]

Assault HQ is a different beast. As I recall, it only impacts command ability and I don't feel it has a big impact whether you are using an Assault or regular HQ.

One of, if not the main function of Assault HQ's is to double the CPP gain of in range subordinate units not attached that turn or exceeding the command capacity of the HQ. Assault HQ's are fundamental, then, to CPP as the game stands.

[MarkShot]

Mehring,

You are saying CU and SU units simply in range of the AHQ, not necessarily attached to boost CPP recovery?

If so, I totally misunderstood the fundamentals of AHQs.

Thanks. (I will test on a save I have.)

[FortTell]

Mehring,
You are saying CU and SU units simply in range of the AHQ, not necessarily attached to boost CPP recovery?

in range subordinate units

He does not, the units must be in the AHQ's command chain (but may be directly subordinate to the AHQ, here I am not sure) and be in range of their direct HQ.

[Mehring]

Mehring,

You are saying CU and SU units simply in range of the AHQ, not necessarily attached to boost CPP recovery?

If so, I totally misunderstood the fundamentals of AHQs.

Thanks. (I will test on a save I have.)

As I understand it, to gain the CPP generation bonus CU/SU would have to be-

1. attached to the Army/Front HQ or its subordinate HQ the previous turn or earlier.
2. attached to an HQ within its command capacity
3. both within range of the subordinate HQ they are attached to (if applicable) AND Army/Front HQ (from memory 30 hexes)

If attached directly to an Army or Front I *think* CU would have to be within 5 hexes range.

If you do a test I'd be interested to know how exceeding command capacity for any HQ in the chain diminishes CPP generation, for example, whether exceeding Front command capacity removes the bonus for the entire Front or units exeeding capacity are randomly picked and/or whether exceeding capacity of a subordinate HQ affects units subordinate to other HQ's.

[MarkShot]

Well, I did have this experience. I was playing the Luki intro as the RA.

I began with I forgot who as Front Commander (he starts as an AHQ). When I pushed him over command, and checked efficiency; all his CU's were yellow bordered. When I had the AP to put Chukov in; even over capacity Chukov's CU's were bordered by a dark green.

I like this new graphic function. Very easy to spot issues. I think WITW you would have to do a few things. Use the CR to check DTHQ (ideally C-HQ). But this is easier.

[Mehring]

Well, I did have this experience. I was playing the Luki intro as the RA.

I began with I forgot who as Front Commander (he starts as an AHQ). When I pushed him over command, and checked efficiency; all his CU's were yellow bordered. When I had the AP to put Chukov in; even over capacity Chukov's CU's were bordered by a dark green.

I like this new graphic function. Very easy to spot issues. I think WITW you would have to do a few things. Use the CR to check DTHQ (ideally C-HQ). But this is easier.

There are two forms of HQ information, command quality- which I don't believe will change colour due to over capacity- and command efficiency- which will express capacity, range and number of HQ's in the chain of command. Both are very much approximations, more an indicator that you need to investigate a problem, if there is one that is.

For example, poor leadership quality stats you don't need so much, like political rating or mech rating of a commander with infantry subordinates, seems to downgrade the colour depiction of an otherwise good leader. Likewise, the efficiency rating will downgrade colour for units being out of range of HHQ but you have to check if this is the cause, it could just as well be over capacity. It also seems that units with a corps HQ will get a colour upgrade even if there are other faults in the chain. It's just a canary, not a diagnostic.