Historic house rules

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:46 pm

Of course it's sometimes hard to keep civilised if pressured this way. But let's try. Anyway, I agree to the content, but not the words.

TDV · Post by **TDV** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:00 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

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.....

Hello,
May be this in an example:
There are Stavka representatives on the Soviet side during WWII. This guys was coordinating actions of different fronts. For instanse, Zhukov was a Stavka representative in Bellorussia-1944 (Operation Bagration). Thr Stavka representative can give additional supply and reinforsment to a certain Army. They had their own resources. 1st Tank Army got special additional resources from Zhukov in Poland in 1944 (I based on Gen.Poppel memories).

Regards,
TDV

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:23 pm

Nick writes (and I hope that is correct)...
Thus Interdiction attacks for example can only be launched in support of units under the command of that HQ but the HQ can launch up to 5 of them (thus a target 'could' be hit 5 times in a week but usually only 2 or 3) As i play(as german) with the luftwaffe in the east all concentrated into 5 HQ's then one interdiction per HQ would mean only 5 interdictions per turn on the whole front and severely undermine the true strength of the luftwaffe.

Example: for me the 2nd Pz Armee usually has 5 air groups (2 fighter, 2 stuka, 1 level bomber). If I was to interdict I could launch 3 seperate interdiction attacks. The game allows you to launch 3 attacks against a single target if you so choose and there is a 10% readiness loss to the attacked unit for each such attack. Logically this makes no sense.
Since the effect of the bombing is considered to be from attacks over the whole week then what would happen is that the effect would be combined. I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about this I am sorry. It is NOT a single attack. The damage is supposed to represant the sum of a large number of missions.
So if they are all launched from the same HQ at the same target you should just combine them. Hitting the target 3 times is a game mechanic exploit: nothing more nothing less. If the readiness penelty scaled with the attack then I would have no problem. If you want to hit the target with multiple attacks from multiple HQs then I will not object but launching 3 attacks against a single unit from the same HQ simply to get 3x10% reduction is nonsensical.
A sure fired way to get rid of this problem is to track how much damage a unit takes from interdiction and after all attacks are done during the pre-plot phase apply a readiness penelty to that unit. So if it gets bombed by every ground attack aircraft the germans (or russians) have than it has a negligable readiness. But again I rather doubt that there is room in the code for this sort of thing.

As for your other comment, no if you have the planes in only 5 HQs you could launch as many different interdiction attacks as you like (and have ground attack groups) but only a maximum of 5 attacks against a single target (1 from each HQ). I hardly think this will cripple your offensive and in terms of damaged equipement the attacks with larger numbers of bombers will be more effective. My restriction was only on the way attacks against a single target from a single HQ are applied.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:49 pm

Originally posted by GET TRANSPT:
Ed, I don't consider posting 1,425 times in one year "normal" nor can I speak for others like you do.

ROFL! You haven't spent any time in the ArtWar forum have you? There's a guy there with 6,000+ posts, and he hasn't been there that long. My measly 1,400 in 16 months is nothing.

Sometimes I'll speak for others accidentally, or for convenience in an arguement to avoid excessive posts, bur I do not see where I spoke for others in my last post.

I'd love to see what you have to say for your opinions. I certainly hope it takes less than 1,425 more posts for you to overcome me "holding up" your mind so that you can be ready to "talk subject at hand".

You've lost me here. First, I've never been afraid to hold back my opinions. Second, the number of posts to this forum by me has nothing to do with your disruption of this forum.

Your hand seems to be devoted mostly to typing about what I'm posting, not saying anything about your ever elusive "subject".

LOL!, Deja Vu. What is your subject Mr. GET TRANSPT? Is it the game WIR, or just the fun of aggravating other people? If you would just shut up for a little bit you'd see what my, and many others here, subject is.

Do you have anything to post here NOT about me or my posts?. I surely did not come into this forum to see posts just about me. I may interest you, but you interested in me is not so interesting to me.

ROFL!!! You're incredible! Turn the whole issue around and say I'm the original transgressor? I have no interest in you at all Mr. GET TRANSPT, except that you are attacking people here and causing interference with the normal actions in this group. My interest in you will be over the instant you shut up.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 9:02 pm

Originally posted by TDV:

Hello,
May be this in an example:
There are Stavka representatives on the Soviet side during WWII. This guys was coordinating actions of different fronts. For instanse, Zhukov was a Stavka representative in Bellorussia-1944 (Operation Bagration). Thr Stavka representative can give additional supply and reinforsment to a certain Army. They had their own resources. 1st Tank Army got special additional resources from Zhukov in Poland in 1944 (I based on Gen.Poppel memories).
TDV

Weren't these the "political commissars"? that spied on military actions to make sure all were being politically correct? Were they running a full Army sized logistical chain? Getting extra supplies from higher up the chain of command is not a problem. The problem is a unit getting a duplicate supply chain, 2 supply channels from 2 normal sized Army HQs.

What you've got here reminds me of the officer sent to the front by his superior to report back on how things "really are going on at the front". He finds things bad, reports this, and that unit receives extra supplies than it normally could have gotten. Not 2 seperate chains of command, however.

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 9:54 pm

On the subject of special supply from HQ mules, according to Gary Grigsby himself, OPs represent a combination of planning (operations function) and supply (logistics function). When a player has a Korps assigned to say the 2nd Panzer Army at the start of a turn and temperarily assigns it to say the 18th Army to give it special supply then reassigns it back to the 2nd Panzer Army, all he has done is used the supplies meant for the 18th Army for a unit in the 2nd Panzer Army. The unit was never really assigned to the 18th Army since no time elapsed, hence there is no question of a unit having two Hqs. Now to do this historically correct with any house rules there should be a limit of only half of the OPs available from HQ mules since only half of the OPs represent supplies. To take all the OPs from a HQ mule would be transferring planning function and that would imply having 2 higher HQs.

Svar

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 10:01 pm

Now that I have finally read through all this, I can weigh in.

Do some of you figure out these by accident of do you look for them purposely. The game designer didn't intend for these things to be done, so why try to circumvent the programming or expliot its errors?

"HQ mules" - This is a complete expliotation (cheat if I may) of the game system. I have over 18 yrs in the service some of that time at the EAD/EAC level and there is NO SUCH CONCEPT of a combat unit having alternate HQs. Even Lorenzo's "example" is for a single unit in a peacetime / training role, NOT a unit in combat. It's higher HQ is probably further away than the supply / repair center is and hence an arrangement for it to get support services from the close location.

I also inferred from reading that the folks that are using these "HQ mules" are also packing their "operational HQs" with as many corps/korps/armies as will fit. which is also an abomination. A German Armee could handle 2-4 korps, perhaps 6 AT MOST. An Army Group could handle up to 4 Armies. The same goes for soviet fronts 2-6 "armies" per front MAX.

Purposely assinging more than this for the mules exploitation is a further misuse of the game system.

Multiple Interdict attacks - This is another misuse of the game system, the doctrinally correct thing to do is assign fighter and bomber groups to all the front line HQs that will be attacking or will need air cover, that means all the army (or front) HQs not just 4 or 5 HQs - which I'm willing to bet are the same ones that have all the combat corps stuffed into them.

Most of the rest of the proposed rules seem to have wide spread support, so I don't have anything to add to them.

These are all good sense items that wouldn't even have to be discussed if the code size restrictions weren't so tight.

If you want to be the "ultimate war lord" and completely trash out an opponnent, play one of the many console system games where thare are "power ups" etc, galore, but if you want to gain an appreciation of the east front in WWI, then try to stay within the bounds of reality.

[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]</p>

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 10:14 pm

Before our basher jumps in: You meant WWII, right?
<img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Yes that's the point this is not red team versus blue team and jou won't get an extra life if you jump on the head of the enemy. It's about the struggle between Germany and Russia and to some extent the other allies between 1941 and 1945 with a map intended to simulate the events as realistically as possible under the restrictions of the game engine.

This game is not about stunning graphics and cool explosions. I cannot understand why some people here don't agree to this. In a console game it is a cool feature if you get more life energy by doing some neat tricks noone expected. Doing things that historically never could have happened in any event by exploiting the weaknesses of the engine isn't.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 10:21 pm

Originally posted by Svar:
On the subject of special supply from HQ mules, according to Gary Grigsby himself, OPs represent a combination of planning (operations function) and supply (logistics function). When a player has a Korps assigned to say the 2nd Panzer Army at the start of a turn and temperarily assigns it to say the 18th Army to give it special supply then reassigns it back to the 2nd Panzer Army, all he has done is used the supplies meant for the 18th Army for a unit in the 2nd Panzer Army.

I don't see how what Gary said about planning and supply applies here.

Switching commands is not a trivial affair that lasts less than a day. It takes time, and it takes time for the new HQ to establish a normal supply and command/control chain to the newly assigned unit.

If this were as trivial as you make it, why haven't we been doing this for the last 50 years?

I have to agree completely with Mike Santos on this.

[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 10:41 pm

From GET TRANSPT:

1,427 post and counting, and the last dozen about me,nothing else. * yawn* It's your time to waste, groupie.

No private insults allowed Mr. GET TRANSPT, anything you have to say to me will be done publically. Thus:

A truly lame response, the number of posts by me issue is old news that I, and one other, put to rest with your last post. The "*yawn*" is definitely unoriginal, I know you can be more creative if you try. On top of all else, you lied. I've made 7 posts that were not about you since your first post that started all this back on page 3. I expect better from you since you started out so well, don't disappoint me.

[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 10:57 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

I don't see how what Gary said about planning and supply applies here.

Switching commands is not a trivial affair that lasts less than a day. It takes time, and it takes time for the new HQ to establish a normal supply and command/control chain to the newly assigned unit.

If this were as trivial as you make it, why haven't we been doing this for the last 50 years?

I have to agree completely with Mike Santos on this.

[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Ed,

There is no switch in command only the transfer of supplies meant for another HQ. The limits of the operating system don't allow more effective control over logistics so this supplements it. When you play against the AI I don't know how many things that it can do and does but some of the fixes that the Matrix team implemented may have removed many of them making it easier to beat. Maybe some of the things like special supply should have been removed when the AI "cheats" were removed.

Svar

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:16 pm

Originally posted by Svar:

There is no switch in command only the transfer of supplies meant for another HQ.

Again, if this were true why haven't I seen a wargame that allowed the routine transfer of supply from one HQ to another HQ's unit?

The limits of the operating system don't allow more effective control over logistics so this supplements it.

Why do you assume its a supplement? Why do you assume a modern version of this game would let you do the things you speak of here? Again, because the game doesn't let you do what you want, you blame the game for that, rather than looking at the realism of your OP tactics. If Gary meant for this, I'm sure he would have allowed for the *horizontal* shift of OPs from Army HQ to Army HQ, in addition to the vertical shift from OKW to OKH to Army Group to Army.

Maybe some of the things like special supply should have been removed when the AI "cheats" were removed.

Considering the heat being generated about the restrictions on special supply, I'd say we would have an outright rebellion if we removed it. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Seriously though, I understand your point, some cheats have been removed, and that might explain the weaker Soviet player. Right now it looks like a change of experience for Soviet forces on the map will be tested to correct the problem.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 2:24 am

Huh? Here was a fight for just cause.. and I am late... what a pitty. You should have to create separate post for it <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Well... the only thing is left for me is to read this exciting thread starting from the first post of Transport. *sigh*

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 2:32 am

don't worry mist, if we run out of morons we can have a visit over at Art of Wargaming <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 2:32 am

Well, I think here we can resume the Home rules which (I think) we all agree:

- Russians HQ at 3 hexes of east border are in Siberia and cańt be attacked. Their Air Groups, of course, must be in training, cańt Cap or Ground Attack.
- The Finns will only occupy up to the river just north of small town just north of Lenningrad.
The Finns cańt attack the north of Leningrad (except with artillery or aircrafts) or go into Russia, until Leningrad, Moscow or Stalingrad has been conquered (one of them). But even then, they cańt go deeper of 6 hexes from Leningrad. If Helsinki surrenders, all the Finn units cease fire.
- Hungarians, Bulgarians, Finns or Rumanians cańt go to west or south front. Italians cańt go to west front.
- The Pz corps or Tank armies must have, minimum, one Pz or Tank division, or mechanized division, or cavalry division. If not, they move as infantry.
- If any unit is isolated and receives air supply, this turn cant move or attack (it was necessary airfields to be supplied).
- The Pz corps or Tank armies must have, minimum, one Pz or Tank division, or mechanized division, or cavalry division. If not, they move as infantry.
- Must be two fighters and a bomber (minimum) in West (or OKW or OKH) and South front.
-Hungarian and Rummainian units can not be in the same Korps.
- No Korp or Army can move unless it contains at least 1 Division sized unit.

We are discussing only about mules HQ́s and the repeated air attacks from a single HQ.

All people agree with this? Can we say this “standard home rules” for PEBM (until now)

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 3:23 am

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor:
don't worry mist, if we run out of morons we can have a visit over at Art of Wargaming <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Oh.. ArtWar is too much spice and pepper for me.
But WiR forum is so correct ... it needs some hot and dirty things like GET TRANSP posts to stay in a good shape but not too often. Once per two months perhaps. Hmm.. no. It would be too often.... <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Mr GET TRANSPORT, could you please visit WiR forum once again next year? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 3:37 am

I agree with all house rules stated here. I personally tend against mules and have no real opinion on the planes issue. In Multiplayer, I would accept either allow or disallow it according to the partner.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 4:39 am

About mules:

I agree that there was never (well, never say never, but at least very, very rarely) any horizontal distribution of supplies, so from an organisational point of view mules make no sense whatsoever. BUT...

There was indeed a verticaly uneven distribution of supplies, from superior to inferior units. In the Fall Blau campaign, AGS got far more supplies than AGN or AGC. This is not possible to do in WIR, all HQ get an equal number of OPs. I personally prefer to play without mules, but I must say that it IS a way to simulate (very imperfectly) something that really happened - not in the WAY it happened but in its results.

The main problem with using mules in my mind is the things you have to do to free up HQ's for mule duty in the first place: have monstrous Armies/Fronts with 10-12 or more armies, all the air groups concentrated to these armies with the consequent problem with repeated air strikes...

These actions upset game play so much that I think its not worth the simulation of vertical logistic management. The house rule I would like to propose against this is that no Army/Front can ever have more than 6 Korps/Armies attached (except if you do not have enough HQs to command all your units, in which case you can add one evenly across the line until all have an HQ). This also forces you to spread out your fighters in a realistic manner.

Only exception from this rule should HQs that you keep at home for training purposes. But these can't function as mules anyway, so they represent no problem.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:54 am

SoleSurvivor, Yes, I meant WWII (missed that).

Svar, you must not have studied logistics in any detail. WIR vastly oversimplifies logistics (sustainment in modern parlance) as it is. To try to rationalize the use of "supply mules" is beyond reason. The Germans experienced massive difficulties in logistics in the east front; they had not conducted a campaign that lasted over 6 weeks before and the nightmares that they had in sustaining their armies in the east magnified as time went on in 1941 and in subsequent years. The soviets, on the other hand, even though they were retreating along their LOCs experienced massive disruptions in production of all types of war implements such that their armies in 1942 were seriously short of artillery for most of the year. It was only the massive lend lease aid that came from the US and GB that allowed them to mount successively larger offensives as time went on.

Sustainment operations must be planned in depth, with objectives, distances, consumption rates, etc all calculated so as to have some idea of planned requirements and frequency of re-supply (not to mention maintenance). An HQ can't suddennly divert X amount of "suplies" to another unit in a diffeernt Army or Army Group HQ; the "mule" HQ command group often won't even know all the units in his adjacent HQ, how can he possibly plan for and supply such a unit?

The hidden agenda that I see emerging here is that some of you are creating a small number (looks like 5 to me) of giagantic Army HQs with dozens of combat corps in them and then are wondering why they can't all be supplied, etc. Neither the game or the reality or the war at that time (or at any other time in history) supports this method of combat organization. As brilliant as Manstein was, even he was not capable of tactically or operationally commanding the giagantic armies that you are using.

Re-align your units to 2-6 corps (soviet armies) per Army (front) HQ, distribute your air groups to ALL army HQs not to just 4 or 5 and you won't have either problem. Use your parent Army Group HQs (senior soviet HQs) to special supply critical units in the Army Group, WITHOUT switching a unit from one AG to another, if a unit is in critical need or extra supply.

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Tue Nov 20, 2001 10:45 am

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:

Example: for me the 2nd Pz Armee usually has 5 air groups (2 fighter, 2 stuka, 1 level bomber). If I was to interdict I could launch 3 seperate interdiction attacks. The game allows you to launch 3 attacks against a single target if you so choose and there is a 10% readiness loss to the attacked unit for each such attack. Logically this makes no sense.
Since the effect of the bombing is considered to be from attacks over the whole week then what would happen is that the effect would be combined. I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about this I am sorry. It is NOT a single attack. The damage is supposed to represant the sum of a large number of missions.
So if they are all launched from the same HQ at the same target you should just combine them. Hitting the target 3 times is a game mechanic exploit: nothing more nothing less. If the readiness penelty scaled with the attack then I would have no problem. If you want to hit the target with multiple attacks from multiple HQs then I will not object but launching 3 attacks against a single unit from the same HQ simply to get 3x10% reduction is nonsensical.
A sure fired way to get rid of this problem is to track how much damage a unit takes from interdiction and after all attacks are done during the pre-plot phase apply a readiness penelty to that unit. So if it gets bombed by every ground attack aircraft the germans (or russians) have than it has a negligable readiness. But again I rather doubt that there is room in the code for this sort of thing.

As for your other comment, no if you have the planes in only 5 HQs you could launch as many different interdiction attacks as you like (and have ground attack groups) but only a maximum of 5 attacks against a single target (1 from each HQ). I hardly think this will cripple your offensive and in terms of damaged equipement the attacks with larger numbers of bombers will be more effective. My restriction was only on the way attacks against a single target from a single HQ are applied.

Paul

Ok, have i made a mistake here? I run player directed attacks on medium game speed so i can watch the results. When planes get through to the target in interdiction sometimes there are only ground casualties and no 'xxdiv suffers minor disruption. or 'yydiv suffers heavy disruption'
I was assuming that if there are no notices of disruption then the target suffered only squad or tank losses with no reduction of readiness.

So you are saying that EVERY interdiction attack that causes casualties also causes at least a 10% reduction in readiness?

If this is the case then i can see your point.

Hmmm. Seems as though noone minds interdiction being launched from HQ's not linked to ground units about to engage the target.
So maybe instead of 5 HQ's with 4FTR and 6BMR in each i will try 7 HQ's with 3FTR and 4BMR in each so each HQ can launch 2 X 2BMR attacks on seperate targets for 14 attacks across the front.
So in the end i can still hit a single target with multiple interdictions by simply ignoring my own rule of keeping inerdiction within the chain of command, so soviet unit X can be hit by interdictions from German HQ's A,B and C even though only ground units from HQ B are attacking Unit X that turn.
Net effects are the same(for me)just a different proceedure.

Nick