Historic house rules

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Thu Nov 08, 2001 10:32 pm

Clever players would just conduct single intrediction attacks on a particular defender from multiple HQs and still achieve the same result.

Svar

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 6:47 pm

Originally posted by RickyB:
I will check the readiness affect of this, but to me the defensive fighter issue is a bigger one until I check that out.

Early on, German fighters should beat Russian fighters into the ground. That's historical/realistic. The problem here is with the logic of the game function, not the fighters. The air warfare system in WIR just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They only way to really fix this, is to change the system to rely on air group readiness only to decide what the air groups can do, and how often in a turn they could do it. There would be no distinction between player directed missions and automatic ground support missions. Every mission the player executes would reduce readiness until the point where the air group can't operate any more in that turn. The player can decide between "player directed" missions or automatic missions. If he uses up a lot readiness in pre-combat missions, the air group might not fly, or would not fly very many, missions in the ground support phase.

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:22 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

They only way to really fix this, is to change the system to rely on air group readiness only to decide what the air groups can do, and how often in a turn they could do it.

------------------------------------------------

is this just our dream or its being developed for next versions?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 7:49 pm

Originally posted by czerpak:
is this just our dream or its being developed for next versions?

Alas, its just a dream. Its on the issues list, but that isn't a guaranttee that it will ever be done.

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:00 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Alas, its just a dream. Its on the issues list, but that isn't a guaranttee that it will ever be done.

lived with this for so many years now, can live for some more <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:00 pm

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Some additional house rules to consider...

1. All air attacks from one HQ agaisnt one target must be combined.
2. The Italians will contribute at most 1 figher and 2 bomber groups to whichever HQ has the italian expitionary force attached to it.
3. The starting german air power in the med must remain there so long as there is german troops fighting in africa (this represents the attempt to block the convoys which was critical if they were to have a hope of winning). You can obviously rotate it or enhance it but this minimum must stay.
4. Hungarian and Rummainian units can not be in the same Korps.
5. The Finns will only occupy up to the river just north of small town just north of lenningrad (this may be still to far north but I find the WIR map confusing compared to real ones). If Lennigrad falls they maybe deployed anywhere within 6 hexs of lennigard.
6. No Korp or Army can move unless it contains at least 1 Division sized unit.
7. The german player is required to deal with the Partisans by moving a Korp next to them to supress them (basicly the security divisions are excellent for this since this is what they were intended for).
8. No use of supply mule HQs.
9. Due to attrition the fighters in the west front can be withdrawn to OKH or OKW if the player wants.

A question on historical accuracy. I always convert the Italian Exp. Force into a Pz Korp (the 16th) since it is 2 motorised Divs, plus 1 Cav. I usually attach extra JPz and Pz Batt to it (total ends up being 3 Pz Bn, and 1 JPz). What do people think about this?

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Paul McNeely ]

3- Why maintain so much air units in the south? Of course, you can send a lot of aircrafts, but too a lot of panzers, or a lot of infantry... I think only must be establish a “minimum” (2 fighters and a bomber, may be?) If you prefer have a lot of aircrafts or a minimum, it́s your decision. If I must maintain in Africa 8 air units, I´d prefer abandon Africa!

4 and 5- I agree.

6- Why dońt move a unit if there is not a division? The battalions cant move? I don ́t understand why you propose this rule. And certainly, a single battalion (or even company) can cut a railroad if there is not enemy forces.

8- I dońt say “mule HQ”, but “logistic HQ”. Why dońt to use logistic HQ́s (in real work)? If in any situation you think the supply is very important, you can dedicate your resources to logistic works better than move or attack.
In advances, in defence of critical points, preparing offensives... logistic HQ give you the opportunity of give “extra supply”. But is limited: only a time every turn, depends of the supply of terrain and cost a lot of points. I think is OK and realistic.
If you dońt allow the logistic HQ, you´ll never use “extra-supply”, because cost a lot of preparation points and a unit who depends of a HQ without points dońt fight well.
In my way of playing, I usually attach a logistic HQ to every important fighting HQ. You dońt think it́s better to let to worry about the panzers to Guderian, and about the truks to another general?
Actually, in real world, in every army (I think) there are “logistic units”, “logistic HQ́s” or similar...

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 11:04 pm

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

6- Why don't move a unit if there is not a division? The battalions cant move? I don't understand why you propose this rule. And certainly, a single battalion (or even company) can cut a railroad if there is not enemy forces.

A unit with only a battalion in it can't form a full front the size of a map square, much less being able to occupy a full square. It is very, *very* hard to imagine a full size corps being adjacent to a corps with only a battalion in it and not quickly realize the corps isn't really a corps and could be overrun or overwhelmed in just a day.

8- I don't say mule HQ, but logistic HQ. Why don't to use logistic HQs (in real work)? If in any situation you think the supply is very important, you can dedicate your resources to logistic works better than move or attack.
In advances, in defence of critical points, preparing offensives... logistic HQ give you the opportunity of give “extra supply”. But is limited: only a time every turn, depends of the supply of terrain and cost a lot of points. I think is OK and realistic.
If you dońt allow the logistic HQ, you´ll never use “extra-supply”, because cost a lot of preparation points and a unit who depends of a HQ without points dońt fight well.
In my way of playing, I usually attach a logistic HQ to every important fighting HQ. You dońt think it́s better to let to worry about the panzers to Guderian, and about the truks to another general?

There are some of us who believe using HQ mules is wrong, and not realistic or historical. Changing its name to "Logistics HQs" doesn't help.

Actually, in real world, in every army (I think) there are “logistic units”, “logistic HQ́s” or similar...

Logistics units yes, HQ mules, absolutely not. The idea a redundent chain of command can double the supplies to a unit is very hard for some to swallow. This is a wargame, a military simulation, and no military I know of uses redundant chains of command. HQ mules are an exploit of the game mechanics, not anything that can be rationalized.

A unit switching HQs to get supply then switching back to the original HQ, is so bizarre I can't believe people keep trying to make this sound reasonable. I've never heard of any army of any country doing anything like this.

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Sat Nov 10, 2001 9:13 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

HQ mules are an exploit of the game mechanics, not anything that can be rationalized.

A .

Why use extra-supply? To attack or to defend. But if you use your main HQ to give extra-supply, it will cost PPs. And then, the attacker or defender unit will lose a proportional effectiveness to attack or to defend; even more, will lose effectiveness all the attached units to this HQ. So, we´d never use extra-supply option.
What are PPs? Basically, resources, trucks, time of planning officers, men, ammo, capacity of railroads... Historically, the resources of no important armies were sent to the main armies. Why not do the same in this game?
And only is possible do it a time every turn.

I´d like more opinions. But even according a home rule like “dont allowed logistics HQ”, how control it?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:22 am

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

Why use extra-supply? To attack or to defend. But if you use your main HQ to give extra-supply, it will cost PPs.

Getting extra supplies is *supposed* to cost PPs. Extra Supply is *not* supposed to be a freebie. Using one HQ for special supply then using another HQ to provide PPs goes against common sense. Units in this and any other wargame, much less any other war, have only 1 commander, 1 HQ. The game doesn't stop this not because its something that is reasonable, but because Gary (IMHO) never thought about someone doing this, and just figured people would follow common sense and not have units using 2 HQs. This is one of several exploits that Gary didn't think to block, unfortunately, perhaps because he didn't have the time to go back and patch holes in the game.

But even according a home rule like dont allowed logistics HQ, how control it?

Unfortunately you're right, there is no easy way for a player to see this being done to them. I don't have an answer for this.

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:58 am

Maybe one could set a status bit HasChangedHQ that disallows further changes of HQ unit?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 6:30 am

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor:
Maybe one could set a status bit HasChangedHQ that disallows further changes of HQ unit?

Yes, its going to require Arnaud to put code into the game in order to block this exploit. This problem has been on the issues list for ages now, though.

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:47 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I didnt said extra-supply must be free. It costs PPs, but from a non-fighting HQ.
I dont think that logistic HQ is an exploit. Or better: may be this is an exploit for correct a defect of this game: the no possibility of assignation of resources.
In 1942, every drop of German fuel, every truck of German ammo, was sent to the front of Stalingrad. The others fronts remain inactives.
But in the game, the maximum of PP of a HQ is 60 PP (except in 1941). And, as I said before, to give extra-supply to a unit reduces in the same proportion the effectiveness in combat of this unit and ALL the others units attached to this HQ. So, without logistic HQ́s, NEVER is good give extra-supply.
If you dońt want logistic HQ́s (or mules, as you prefer), you renounces to the possibility of plan your supply assignation. The garrison in Bucharest will receive the same quantity of supply resources that the Pz korps advancing to Stalingrad. (Of course, you can assign to the main HQ́s more replacements, but we´re talking about supply resources).
With logistic HQ́s, is symbolized that the supplies destined to others HQ́s are sent to the main HQ́s, as IN REALITY occurs. And I think it́s not excessive: one unit will drop from 60% of readiness to 80%. I think this is realistic.
The logistic HQ́s may be prohibited (and perhaps must be prohibited) if you´d can assign your resources more freely: i.e, giving to a HQ any quantity of PP for supply purposes (or limited to 100), even maintaining the limit of 60 for fighting purposes; even the excess of PP could disappear at the end of turn. But I suppose that this will be very complicated to programing, and will be easier use logistic HQ́s.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 5:54 pm

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

I didnt said extra-supply must be free. It costs PPs, but from a non-fighting HQ.

What the heck is a "non-fighting HQ"?

I dont think that logistic HQ is an exploit.

Sorry Lorenzo, but it is, and calling it a "Logistical HQ" doesn't improve its believability one bit. You won't find that in the WIR manual, HQs do not have categories like that. If Gary had intended for you to use HQ mules he would have introduced different HQ categories himself.

Or better: may be this is an exploit for correct a defect of this game: the no possibility of assignation of resources.

No, the "defect" you see is the game preventing you from giving special supply to units who shouldn't get it.

Fine Lorenzo, ignore common sense and argue units should be able to be handled by two chains of command instead of the logical one. Special supply is supposed to be limited, and the effort expended getting those extra supplies to the unit are supposed to consume operations points. The ability of concentrating supply for some units with HQ mules is not legitimate because the game lets you do it. The game lets you do this because the game HAS A LOOPHOLE. The limit for any unit is the amount of special supply it can get from its parent HQ, limited by the supply level of the square the unit is in, and the available OPs in the HQ. That's it, no more supply.

Speaking of historical Lorenzo, show us one example, just one example of a modern (WW1+) division-sized unit having two Army level HQs, one providing supply only, and the other providing everything else. JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Now the fact that you can't find such an example should tell you something.....

In the meantime, most of the rest of us will side with common sense and stick with one, and only one, chain of command for each combat unit.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 6:51 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

No, the "defect" you see is the game preventing you from giving special supply to units who shouldn't get it.

Fine Lorenzo, ignore common sense and argue units should be able to be handled by two chains of command instead of the logical one. Special supply is supposed to be limited, and the effort expended getting those extra supplies to the unit are supposed to consume operations points. The ability of concentrating supply for some units with HQ mules is not legitimate because the game lets you do it. The game lets you do this because the game HAS A LOOPHOLE. The limit for any unit is the amount of special supply it can get from its parent HQ, limited by the supply level of the square the unit is in, and the available OPs in the HQ. That's it, no more supply.

Speaking of historical Lorenzo, show us one example, just one example of a modern (WW1+) division-sized unit having two Army level HQs, one providing supply only, and the other providing everything else. JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Now the fact that you can't find such an example should tell you something.....

In the meantime, most of the rest of us will side with common sense and stick with one, and only one, chain of command for each combat unit.

I have played with many people of this forum and only Mist said not use Hqs mules. I think most of the people uses it.
However I agree that is not historical change ops between Hqs but supply system is not good. If you could assign the Ops ( as OKH or Stavka did )to the Hqs would be better.The use of Hq mules ( that not the over-abuse) fill the lack of a more accurate supply system.
In other way, We dont must forget that the the key of a game is to be balanced. If simply we dont allow the use of Hq mules the game will be more unbalanced. Have you try to defend with the russians with no Hq mules? I test it and the russians have not any possiblility of survive in 1941. The readiness drop and the retreat consumes the ops needed for the defense.
I believe that noboby wants an unbalanced game. The first issue is improve the supply system.If we dont do that who new gamers will want to play a game that USSR cant survive?An unhistorical aproach for a game I think.

radical · Post by **radical** » Sun Nov 11, 2001 10:38 pm

This may have been already discussed or dismissed as not possible, but could the limit on "operation points" for headquarters be delinked from supply level or adjusted so that operation points given to a headquarters unit would be a max of 2 x supply level of that headquarer unit (up to the replacement level)? Assuming the total available op points remains fixed, this would allow some shifting of resources for supply (which is historically accurate) without the need for ahistorical "supply mule headquarters". This would also tend to burn up operation points more quickly, and force a player to decide which headquarters to put on a diet of lowered replacent points or risk a severe shortfall of no operation points for some headquarters. As it is now, after blitz supply is over, I can usually keep every headquarters unit at 60 or greater replacement level, and usually get full operation points for every unit.

If I could get 100 operation points for my panzer headquarters, I would have sufficient op points for special supply for selected units, but at the cost of low op points for other headquarters.

Would this coding be doable? If workable would this imbalance the game? If acceptable could we then agree to outlaw supply mules? Or have I missed something obvious?

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Mon Nov 12, 2001 1:25 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Logistics units yes, HQ mules, absolutely not. The idea a redundent chain of command can double the supplies to a unit is very hard for some to swallow. This is a wargame, a military simulation, and no military I know of uses redundant chains of command. HQ mules are an exploit of the game mechanics, not anything that can be rationalized.

A unit switching HQs to get supply then switching back to the original HQ, is so bizarre I can't believe people keep trying to make this sound reasonable. I've never heard of any army of any country doing anything like this.

Oh, my God. Ed <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> I propose you to create answering machine which would react on HQ mules posts <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> You are fighting neverending battle.
The actual problem is probably not there. HQ system is terrible itself. Here are two worst holes:

1. Units can INSTANTLY change HQs and do this absolutely free. THIS, is a BIG HOLE in game logic. Receiving new korps was not that button-click-easy job and it required certain efforts from both HQs. This should be represented either by loss of OPs* or loss of unit's readiness**(whichever is easier to code for Arnaud) each time when unit changes HQ.

2. Player can change HQ commander as many times as he wishes within a week with no consequenses for HQ's OPs. This is TOTAL NONSENSE. It should cost at least 5 OPs. Not so high price for changing commander during active military actions.

There will be no mule "problem" if we plug these two OBVIOUS HOLES.

* OPs loss formula can be
number_of_independent_units for receiving HQ
number_of_independent_units/2 for giving HQ

** Readiness loss can be calculated according to the formula (10-L1)*(10-L2), %. Where L1,2 are leader ratings for leaders of two HQs.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Mon Nov 12, 2001 1:43 am

Originally posted by radical:
This may have been already discussed or dismissed as not possible, but could the limit on "operation points" for headquarters be delinked from supply level or adjusted so that operation points given to a headquarters unit would be a max of 2 x supply level of that headquarer unit (up to the replacement level)? Assuming the total available op points remains fixed, this would allow some shifting of resources for supply (which is historically accurate) without the need for ahistorical "supply mule headquarters". This would also tend to burn up operation points more quickly, and force a player to decide which headquarters to put on a diet of lowered replacent points or risk a severe shortfall of no operation points for some headquarters. As it is now, after blitz supply is over, I can usually keep every headquarters unit at 60 or greater replacement level, and usually get full operation points for every unit.

If I could get 100 operation points for my panzer headquarters, I would have sufficient op points for special supply for selected units, but at the cost of low op points for other headquarters.

Would this coding be doable? If workable would this imbalance the game? If acceptable could we then agree to outlaw supply mules? Or have I missed something obvious?

I like this idea if you mean to allow HQs to have more that 10*SL OPs. I would also propose to allow HQs operation points to climb higher than 60 during usual supply if they do not move. Let's say HQ unit gets 3 OPs if it already has 10*SL(but no more that 15*SL) and did not move previous turn. How does this sound?

alfmdoncel · Post by **alfmdoncel** » Mon Nov 12, 2001 3:14 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Josan:
[QB]

I have played with many people of this forum and only Mist said not use Hqs mules. I think most of the people uses it.

Well, I never use a "mule" HQ. So, Mist is not alone. I find that it is a little bit bizarre to change the HQ for a unit twice a week. I however agree with you that the supply system is not well simulated in the game. But the game is at it is. You cannot change the movement of the bishop in chess because you dont like it. I think Gary and Arnaud would never use HQ mules, and peharps that can be considered as a definition of rule.
There is another possibilty, and perhaps Mist would like to comment on it if possible. We could "specialsupply" a unit in our back lines and then rail transfer some divisions to the front. It would be useful in Soviet first weeks perhaps, and perhaps German Blizzard turns. I think this could represent the arrival of fresh troops to the battle.
Do you find suplly/rail transfer acceptable??

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Mon Nov 12, 2001 4:28 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

No, the "defect" you see is the game preventing you from giving special supply to units who shouldn't get it.

Fine Lorenzo, ignore common sense and argue units should be able to be handled by two chains of command instead of the logical one. Special supply is supposed to be limited, and the effort expended getting those extra supplies to the unit are supposed to consume operations points. The ability of concentrating supply for some units with HQ mules is not legitimate because the game lets you do it. The game lets you do this because the game HAS A LOOPHOLE. The limit for any unit is the amount of special supply it can get from its parent HQ, limited by the supply level of the square the unit is in, and the available OPs in the HQ. That's it, no more supply.

Speaking of historical Lorenzo, show us one example, just one example of a modern (WW1+) division-sized unit having two Army level HQs, one providing supply only, and the other providing everything else. JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Now the fact that you can't find such an example should tell you something.....

In the meantime, most of the rest of us will side with common sense and stick with one, and only one, chain of command for each combat unit.

Well, in my city is a Tank brigade of Spanish army and two infantry divisions. There is a HQ, but there is an independent logistic HQ, with attached units.
Imagine: You ´re the soviet player. You´re defending Moscow. The defender, attacked by Lutwaffe and ground units, has only 60% of readiness. Your HQ has 60 PP.
If you give to the unit an extra-supply, the readiness raises to 80%. This increase the fight capacity in a 33%. But the HQ PP falls, more or less, 20 PP. This make drop the fight capacity of this unit in a -33 %. So, the result is a drawn. But all the others units attached to this HQ will drop in 33% too. So, you simply must́n send extra-supply. Except, of course, if there is only one unit in the HQ, in this case is the same use extra-supply or not.
And do you think that the Stalin will send more supplies to the defenders of Moscow that to the others units? A 20% more it´s too much?
I ́d prefer too dont use logistic HQs, but only if I can assign resources to my HQs. If I cań t, is more realistic use some Hqs to give supply to the most important units. Give supply to units only by the terrain capacity of supply is totally unrealistic. Must be two factors: the possibility of reach supply (OK in the game) and the decision of the general about the necessities and the plans (only with extra-supply).
I agree with Mist: must be some PP penalitation when changing leader or HQ asigned. But only if first is possible any kind of effective supply assignation. If not, the supply HQs (or logistic HQs, or mules HQs) simulates more or less the supplies asignations in real life.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Mon Nov 12, 2001 4:40 am

Originally posted by Alfonso M:

Originally posted by Josan:
[QB]

I have played with many people of this forum and only Mist said not use Hqs mules. I think most of the people uses it.

Well, I never use a "mule" HQ. So, Mist is not alone. I find that it is a little bit bizarre to change the HQ for a unit twice a week. I however agree with you that the supply system is not well simulated in the game. But the game is at it is. You cannot change the movement of the bishop in chess because you dont like it. I think Gary and Arnaud would never use HQ mules, and peharps that can be considered as a definition of rule.
There is another possibilty, and perhaps Mist would like to comment on it if possible. We could "specialsupply" a unit in our back lines and then rail transfer some divisions to the front. It would be useful in Soviet first weeks perhaps, and perhaps German Blizzard turns. I think this could represent the arrival of fresh troops to the battle.
Do you find suplly/rail transfer acceptable??
Yes I Know Mist is not the only one. I stated that Mist was the only that said me dont use Hq mules in a game.Is different.
Alfonso, did you managed to survive in 1941 as soviet in a PBEM game with no Hq mules? If the answer is no the game is unhistorical.

I think is better change the supply system to avoid the use of Hq mules. As I said before dont allow the use of Hqs for supply purposes without any major change in the supply system will convert the game more unbalanced, with no options for the soviets. But seems that Im the only one that fears for a WiR unbalanced.

P.S. ¿ Que os ha pasado en Zaragoza <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> ?