Italian/West fronts

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Sun Sep 09, 2001 12:56 pm

Two questions about Italian/West fronts. Why not place them over a city in the 1941 winter to avoid the winter effects, and secondly, if the allied strength of west front is 3,000 and italy 2000, does that mean you need 3010 and 2510 to keep the fronts safe, or 4,000 + and 3,000 + as according to the old manual + 1000 for west front, + 500 for italian front.

murx · Post by **murx** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 10:17 am

There are several things that really bug me with theese fronts (and esp. with their shattering)

1. When shattering the airunits loose about 50% of aircrafts - why that ? OK, for the African part I can understand that a serious loss might happen (But even then if the force is big enough an orderly withdrawl is more logical) - but later on ? When France or Italian shatters ? Aren't the airstrips in the rear area and they will probably get withdrawn as the Allies gain ground - I guess only the AI lets his valuable HQs with Aircrafts get destroyed at thee Russian front ... so at least withdrawing the airunits before shatter is very logical - and important, in the '42 Campaign I lost like 1800 Fw190 due to shatter ...
2. Why should a force shatter be a bad idea and have a serious result for the next check ? The situation is desperate and you need to build up another defense line - either should the next Front check be done depending on how long one hold the Front (buying time to prepare the Westwall for instance) and/or the shatter losses should be depending on the overall Allies/Axis Forces over the complete time the Front hold. (So if one had 1:1 quota against the Allies for the whole time it should be like 50% losses, if you had the first half 1:4 and the second 1:1 its an overall value of 1:2 resulting in 33% losses).
3. There is NO way of 'winning' Africa or France ... is that correct ? We play this game to let Axis win or Soviet win faster then they historically have. So why shouldn't there be a possibility to win Africa ? I think there should be NO Force Shatter at anytime - plus the Allies Battlevalue shouldn't rise into unbelieveble values (or at last give a chance to place more units at these Fronts).
I mean what would have happened if Rommel had 5 PzDivisions and 15 Infantry Divisions more at hand ? Would he have taken the Suez Canal and hold it indefinetely ? What if he took Marocco and not only cut the eastern but the western route into the Mittelmeer (what's the name ?).
Could the Invasion in France happen if the British Fleets in the East Indies had to get supplied around Cape Horn instead of Suez Canal (that's some 16000 miles the ships had to go more) and the resources they imported from there too ?
Even after winning Africa would the Allies have tried D-Day if they knew there were 10 PzDivs and 20 InfDivs more at the coast? And as long as they haven't even landed their points shouldn't get one point higher (cause these ponts represent what is maximum possible when trying an amphibious landing - from high seas....).

Now my pledging - allow more units at these fronts, get rid of this incredible losses when they shatter - and a forced shatter on 'timed' events should get out too.

murx

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:20 pm

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
Two questions about Italian/West fronts. Why not place them over a city in the 1941 winter to avoid the winter effects,

Well, the real intention is to prevent these Fronts from being affected by weather on the map, or some dividing line on the map, but that hasn't happened yet. I thought this had already been done.

and secondly, if the allied strength of west front is 3,000 and italy 2000, does that mean you need 3010 and 2510 to keep the fronts safe, or 4,000 + and 3,000 + as according to the old manual + 1000 for west front, + 500 for italian front.

IIRC, the displayed number doesn't include the leader check, so you're correct, you have to add 1000 to the West Front and 500 to the Italian Front (750 from '43 on) to be certain to prevent a shatter. Also note that the Italian Front is halved starting in 1943 if they haven't been backed up to the Italian mainland. Same happens in 1944 with the West Front if it hasn't been pushed out of Normandy.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:41 pm

Originally posted by murx:
1. When shattering the airunits loose about 50% of aircrafts - why that ?

Can't say, I'll let someone else tackle this question. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

2. Why should a force shatter be a bad idea and have a serious result for the next check ?

The point was to make it dangerous to pull out all forces in a Front, wait for it to collapse, then put your forces back in. There is the possibility of an early check that leads to a shatter before the newly moved units have recovered readiness from the move.

3. There is NO way of 'winning' Africa or France ... is that correct ?

Yes, no way to win. This is a much debated issue. WiR is not a grand strategy game where the whole fight for the European theatre can be handled. WiR is a simulation of the Eastern Front, not the West or South. It is too much trouble for fairly little gain to implement dynamic Fronts which can win and lose. The whole Fronts system is already too abstract to be used in a realistic way. With Gary the Fronts were largely just for show so to speak, since many of the shatters were hardwired. We now have no fixed shatters, so there is now some uncertainty involved, but frankly Arnaud is not interested in making dynamic Fronts and most testers agree with him. If you really want that, then you really want not WiR but a game of the whole European theatre, or perhaps World in Flames, the whole world at the division level.

and a forced shatter on 'timed' events should get out too.

There are no "forced" shatters, there is always some uncertainty involved, not sure I understand you here.

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 2:59 pm

Is there any chance that the attrition effect when no combat is ongoing can be stopped? I have seen units in France loose strength continously during 41-43 and this is clearly unhistoric. The germans used france as a place to rebuild divisions burnt out from combat in russia, they even had one division that in 44 was at full 41 authorised strength (the one in the channel islands) so I don't see why the units in France should take casulties like they do now. This is especially true of the Pz Bde's and I am not sure about the air units.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 4:05 pm

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Is there any chance that the attrition effect when no combat is ongoing can be stopped? I have seen units in France loose strength continously during 41-43 and this is clearly unhistoric.

The germans used france as a place to rebuild divisions burnt out from combat in russia, they even had one division that in 44 was at full 41 authorised strength (the one in the channel islands) so I don't see why the units in France should take casulties like they do now. This is especially true of the Pz Bde's and I am not sure about the air units.

We are aware of this situation. Its on our issues list, but it is not considered a bug by some at this point (except me). Some will make an argument to justify the attrition in the West Front until Normandy.

[TootMyOwnHornMode]
It should be straightforward to fix, as this is one of the things I can change in the next version of wirhack, you'll be able to selectively turn things on and off from a program that makes the changes in the EXE file for you. Real easy, just click some check boxes and hit the Save&Exit button. In your case, just turn West Front attrition off until you get the Normandy invasion event then turn it back on.
[/TootMyOwnHornMode]

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 7:31 pm

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Is there any chance that the attrition effect when no combat is ongoing can be stopped? I have seen units in France loose strength continously during 41-43 and this is clearly unhistoric. The germans used france as a place to rebuild divisions burnt out from combat in russia, they even had one division that in 44 was at full 41 authorised strength (the one in the channel islands) so I don't see why the units in France should take casulties like they do now. This is especially true of the Pz Bde's and I am not sure about the air units.

Paul McNeely,

This situation can easily be turned to your advantage. Once the blitzkreig supply goes away, increase the replacemant level in both fronts to 100% since the maximum OP cost is the same as 60% or higher. As long as you have men and equipment in the pools, your air and ground units will slowly increase in experience to 99 because the experience gain is greater than the attrition loss replacement reduction.

Svar

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Tue Sep 11, 2001 3:55 pm

I normally have these fronts set at high replacement values (80+5%per year).

My objection still remains. It is unhistoric for the forces in France to take casulties pre 44. What bugs me is that France becomes a sink hole for tanks and other equipment. It is the tanks that bother me the most. Starting in 44 the allies began making fighter and bomber sweeps attacking troop targets but before that the bombers were hitting cities not the defending forces. And even then I don't think the germans were taking significant casulties from these attacks, that only began once the troops had to move up to the coast under fighter/fighter bomber attack and then they did suffer extreme attrition.