Matrix Games Forums

Grouchy and ComradeP said it best; I'm coming to the same conclusions. I don't understand why others continue to misread or obfuscate the issue.

Ron bear in mind that Andy is our best playtester. (For both sides, even.) He can do some pretty amazing things. So you have to take his judgment on these matters seriously, he's not just trying to cockblock the Germans out of sheer bloodymindedness.

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

I can see how attaching 3 arty units to a Pz Div and using them wherever the division goes is a problem. In reality they (and their ammo) wouldn't be able to keep up, and they wouldn't have good locational data that's needed for effective indirect fire. The place where artillery shines IMO is on defense- I'd say perhaps let's keep the arty at Corps/Army, but give a substantial negative modifier (i.e. much more likely) to the allocation die roll if the defender is fortified to any level. This would simulate the defender's ability to pre-register artillery in any sort of prepared defense. It should also be 'rolled' against the commander's infantry rating IMO, since there's nothing 'spur of the moment' in planning artillery coverage on defense- it's standard stuff any competent commander in any army would do when setting up his defensive deployment. It would also counter balance the Soviet arty divisions later in the game.

+1

Pieter, for myself, I don't see why you are so hung up on getting a full 3 attachments as opposed to one.

I'm fine with 1, 2 or 3, any number. What I'm trying to do is point out the hypocrisy in Andy's position and in the position of others. Adding a regiment worth of support units to a German division, or a division worth of support units to a Soviet corps is perfectly OK with them, but 36 guns are suddenly the end of the world. That's why I asked Andy to prove his point, as I don't see how 108 pionier squads or 63 StuGs can have less CV than 36 guns. Multiply that by 3 and yes, you get 108 guns. Multiply the pioniere by 3 and you suddenly have an entire pionier division. It's still important to keep in mind that the Soviets use regiments, so aside from the StuGs, most Axis support combinations can fairly easily be countered by a bigger Soviet unit.

Andy: I already pointed out that only 36 units, 53 if 150mm Nebelwerfers are included, would be attachable. So not 90 or 140. We're excluding guns and any howitzer about 150mm. The support battalion TOE's would possible need some work as they currently require "artillery" so the ones that start with 210mm howitzers might theoretically convert to 150mm's.

-

If you want to make a fuzz about support units, then do so about the current possibilities of adding a regiment/division to a combat unit, not about 36 guns or possibly 54 Nebelwerfers.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Pieter, for myself, I don't see why you are so hung up on getting a full 3 attachments as opposed to one.

I'm fine with 1, 2 or 3, any number. What I'm trying to do is point out the hypocrisy in Andy's position and in the position of others. Adding a regiment worth of support units to a German division, or a division worth of support units to a Soviet corps is perfectly OK with them, but 36 guns are suddenly the end of the world. That's why I asked Andy to prove his point, as I don't see how 108 pionier squads or 63 StuGs can have less CV than 36 guns. Multiply that by 3 and yes, you get 108 guns. Multiply the pioniere by 3 and you suddenly have an entire pionier division. It's still important to keep in mind that the Soviets use regiments, so aside from the StuGs, most Axis support combinations can fairly easily be countered by a bigger Soviet unit.

Andy: I already pointed out that only 36 units, 53 if 150mm Nebelwerfers are included, would be attachable. So not 90 or 140. We're excluding guns and any howitzer about 150mm. The support battalion TOE's would possible need some work as they currently require "artillery" so the ones that start with 210mm howitzers might theoretically convert to 150mm's.

-

If you want to make a fuzz about support units, then do so about the current possibilities of adding a regiment/division to a combat unit, not about 36 guns or possibly 54 Nebelwerfers.

I would hate to see stacks of doom running about in 1941, would also hate to the apex of assaults at the tip of the logistic chain have an unfair advantage. Don't like things that should be problematical turned into certainties. Think the accusation of hypocrisy is just a bit strong as the game is not long out and turns do take along time so each issue whether it pertains to the Russians or Germans takes a while distil and one always has to be sure that in a serious wargame demands for change are not based on juvenile favouritism on any side which computer wargames (especially WWII) are plagued with and fit with the spirit of the game.

I'm providing arguments for why it won't break the game compared to what's currently possible. The ones not in favour of the idea have mostly said "it will unbalance/break the game" without providing a reason for exactly how that would happen, again compared to what's already possible in the game.

You can't say that something will unbalance the game whilst at the same time acknowledging that the game has been out for a short time and that it will take the non-testers some time to distill the information.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
I would hate to see stacks of doom running about in 1941, would also hate to the apex of assaults at the tip of the logistic chain have an unfair advantage.

Have you even read through this thread Smirfy, or are you arguing for the sake of argument?!? There is not enough arty of the size were talking about to have 'stacks of doom running about'. Realistically if there is any changes made it will be just one attachment. Logistically were talking about logistics already in place for a DIV internal arty anyways. Ammunition will obviously be used at a higher rate of consumption.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Don't like things that should be problematical turned into certainties.

Who said any thing about certainties? This is a discussion, it will be ultimately up to Gary and Joel. Play testers then will try it out to see if it unbalances anything.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
Think the accusation of hypocrisy is just a bit strong as the game is not long out and turns do take along time so each issue whether it pertains to the Russians or Germans takes a while distil and one always has to be sure that in a serious wargame demands for change are not based on juvenile favouritism on any side which computer wargames (especially WWII) are plagued with and fit with the spirit of the game.

The game has been out long enough to see that German arty that is there is not being used. Its not just a leadership thing either. Players should be allowed to set their own doctrine if they so choose so for a 'serious' war game. But if you've read the post thoroughly through I've said that enough.

As far as juvenile favoritism you can take that comment and shove it, I take offensive to such a thing as should everyone else involved in this discussion. We have made a case for something and have been very 'adultish' about it, not once have I seen any juvenile behavior until your last posting sir.

Don't turn this thread into something its not because you 'think' it might 'wreak' the game. In the game as it is when arty is used does it 'wreak' the game??? No it does not. Now if it were used on a regular bases it wouldn't 'wreak' the game either. It would actually make logistics over the long run harder to keep up with ammunition expenditures so it couldn't be used all the time for all of 41 IMO.

Also keep in mind that the battalions don't actually become part of the division, they can still get hammered by artillery regiments/brigades/divisions.

Speaking of not being part of the division, how about making SU's part of the command load? e.g. 0.5 to 1 point per unit (maybe heavy artillery even more), with a 'surcharge' for being directly attached to divisions. That would deter a player from making 'super' units with attachments. Perhaps a small adjustment to the command limits to incorporate a reasonable allotment of SU's to a corps/army, but this would encourage players to spread them out except in exceptional circumstances. So you can put the siege artillery with a division if you really want to, but you'll only have the MP's to make a single diliberate attack, but not much else, so there's a tradeoff involved.

That would be problematic as players could then use the higher command capacity to add no support units, yet more on-map units to a HQ.

Good point. How about two separate 'types' of command points that are non-transferable. Say a corps would have 8 'division/bde' points (like now), and say 8 'SU' points? Pioneer bn's/PZJg bn's/etc = .5 SU points each. Artillery 155mm or less = 1 SU point each, and artillery >155mm and attached air groups (yeah, I said it) is 2 SU points, maybe even more for the Dora's et al. All SU point costs are DOUBLED when attached directly to divisions.

This would:
1. Simulate the added command/logistic burden of the SU's on the corps HQ, which is valid IMO.
2. Allow SU's to be delegated to divisions without explicit restriction, but the larger penalty simulates a Div HQ's relative lack of additional staff/logistics resources to take over these units for an indefinite period.
3. Allow the player maximum flexibilty, but at a cost.
4. Encourage the player to keep the 'high cost' heavy artillery in reserve at higher HQ's until a particular situation (e.g. a Sevastopol-type seige) warrants their commitment.
5. (I believe) would be fairly easily implemented in the existing game without a massive re-design.

My suggested point costs above are simply guesses, but these could be tweaked to prevent any gamey work-arounds.

<EDITI posted before Franlin Nimitz post so nothing applies to that.>

I can't really agree with you guys for a couple of reasons, firstly and foremost with the very interesting model we have in front of us your solution is direct attachment. Why have leaders, Initiative admin points etc etc etc if we are just creating a stack off doom? Surely if there is a problem should we not be looking at slightly more imaginative solutions than direct attachment. If there is a problem with Russians having artillery units should we not look at things like should they have rolling effectiveness over time to simulate the nessecity of ammo stockpiling or have a mechanic simulating their reliance on telegraph communications thus making their effectiveness not certain. Or if you really want to think outside the box give the Germans a saving roll simulating their tactic of abandoning their line when they had inteligence of a barrage. But for heavens sake let the support units at hq's run for ahwile before abandoning a very standout feature. If German Arty is not being used should something not be tweaked to increase its chance of being used rather than take it out of the headquarter equation and make game features redundant? For Heavy artillery like Sevastapol is their a case for a specialist unit (s). I'm not turning this thread into anything except a counterpoise to what I see as poorly concieved solutions given the scale and depth of the game and what sets it apart from TOAW or Panzer battles. If you want just another counter shove sure work away you will have a poorer product. I say look at artillery see what can be done and if it is felt there is nothing more imaginative than attachment then go ahead. I can't help people taking offense when no offense is intended

Edit: Posted before Smirfy's edit in response to my 2nd post- we're in a nested 'edit loop')

Actually if you look at what I'm suggesting, I'm discouraging routine direct attachment to divisions. And even when a player does want to directly attach units, he can, BUT there's an inherent cost to keeping SU's in divisions on a permanent basis. So the leadship/initiative model would be the 'default' way to deal with SU's, and direct attachment an exceptional tactic for a limited objective.

I also posted earlier my opinion that on defense, a unit that's fortified would get a modifier to artillery SU commitment making commitment more likely when defending and fortified, simulating pre-registered artillery. I think that's valid still as well.

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Actually if you look at what I'm suggesting, I'm discouraging routine direct attachment to divisions. And even when a player does want to directly attach units, he can, BUT there's an inherent cost to keeping SU's in divisions on a permanent basis. So the leadship/initiative model would be the 'default' way to deal with SU's, and direct attachment an exceptional tactic for a limited objective.

I also posted earlier my opinion that on defense, a unit that's fortified would get a modifier to artillery SU commitment making commitment more likely when defending and fortified, simulating pre-registered artillery. I think that's valid still as well.

I posted before I read your post, I like your ideas but like the command and control feature from higher HQ in the game and would not like that too become to redundant.

Smirfy, I'd still appreciate it if you can provide some evidence that a stack with extra 108 guns is "a stack of doom" whilst a stack with 324 extra pionier squads or 189 extra StuGs isn't, not to mention the support unit equipment totals the Soviets can gather in a single stack.

I'm not suggesting a "poorly concieved solution", I'm suggesting that the same logic (or depending on perspective: the lack thereof) be applied to artillery battalions that has been applied to the other support units.

Your resistance seems to rest on the dogmatic idea that 36 guns, or 108 guns are a stack of doom, ignoring the powerful support combinations currently possible in the game. As I said: if anything, the number of attachable support units as a whole should be tuned down if this suddenly isn't acceptable.

Yes, more variability would be ideal, but we have to solve issues with the means currently at our disposal, as major reworkings of the code will take a while (as some have jokingly said: until the General/Field Marshal edition). Also keep in mind that attaching units directly to divisions means certainty at a cost of flexibility. The Germans currently have lots of in many cases small artillery units. I'd prefer the ability to concentrate them into 1 size category higher units, but we can't, so we have to find a way so the abundance of small German units, who all take 1 "slot" just like a Soviet support regiment will get committed.

The people in favour of the suggestion are trying to find a workable solution within the current limitations of the system. If direct attachment indeed unbalances everything, it will never get beyond the testing stage. The point is: we don't know that at this point because it hasn't been tried. Based on the documented CV values I say: it won't, at least not more than the currently possible combinations, and Andy says: it will, for at this time unclear reasons.

Good point. How about two separate 'types' of command points that are non-transferable. Say a corps would have 8 'division/bde' points (like now), and say 8 'SU' points? Pioneer bn's/PZJg bn's/etc = .5 SU points each. Artillery 155mm or less = 1 SU point each, and artillery >155mm and attached air groups (yeah, I said it) is 2 SU points, maybe even more for the Dora's et al. All SU point costs are DOUBLED when attached directly to divisions.

Variable costs for unit types of the same size might be tricky to code, .5 point for battalions and 1 point for regiments (like for on-map regiments) would be easier. Doubling the cost for attached units sounds like an interesting idea. Of course, these ideas are nice but not possible with the current system.

Stack of Doom is a figure of speech to attempt to get across the lack of finesse of that option and is usually the lowest common denominator wargames evolve {sic} into. I would not argue with the figures but find attaching 189 stugs also quite bizarre and would recomend maybe that should be looked at rather than using it justifing the attachmnet of 108 guns. (189 stugs or 108 guns is a lot for a division stack to cope with IMHO).. I feel the game is on the cusp of something pretty good and different from the run of the mill and diluting that for me is a retrograde step but like I said on numerous occaisions I whole heartily agree that if the game is broke and there are no other solutions be my guest. On how broke the artillery part of the game is I have to bow to your greater knowledge on the matter.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ron bear in mind that Andy is our best playtester. (For both sides, even.) He can do some pretty amazing things. So you have to take his judgment on these matters seriously, he's not just trying to cockblock the Germans out of sheer bloodymindedness.

+1

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Speaking of not being part of the division, how about making SU's part of the command load? e.g. 0.5 to 1 point per unit (maybe heavy artillery even more), with a 'surcharge' for being directly attached to divisions. That would deter a player from making 'super' units with attachments. Perhaps a small adjustment to the command limits to incorporate a reasonable allotment of SU's to a corps/army, but this would encourage players to spread them out except in exceptional circumstances. So you can put the siege artillery with a division if you really want to, but you'll only have the MP's to make a single diliberate attack, but not much else, so there's a tradeoff involved.

I really like this idea as well.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Pieter, for myself, I don't see why you are so hung up on getting a full 3 attachments as opposed to one.

I'm fine with 1, 2 or 3, any number. What I'm trying to do is point out the hypocrisy in Andy's position and in the position of others. Adding a regiment worth of support units to a German division, or a division worth of support units to a Soviet corps is perfectly OK with them, but 36 guns are suddenly the end of the world. That's why I asked Andy to prove his point, as I don't see how 108 pionier squads or 63 StuGs can have less CV than 36 guns. Multiply that by 3 and yes, you get 108 guns. Multiply the pioniere by 3 and you suddenly have an entire pionier division. It's still important to keep in mind that the Soviets use regiments, so aside from the StuGs, most Axis support combinations can fairly easily be countered by a bigger Soviet unit.

Andy: I already pointed out that only 36 units, 53 if 150mm Nebelwerfers are included, would be attachable. So not 90 or 140. We're excluding guns and any howitzer about 150mm. The support battalion TOE's would possible need some work as they currently require "artillery" so the ones that start with 210mm howitzers might theoretically convert to 150mm's.

-

If you want to make a fuzz about support units, then do so about the current possibilities of adding a regiment/division to a combat unit, not about 36 guns or possibly 54 Nebelwerfers.

Pieter..you're just not getting the whole picture here. There is nothing hypocritical in what my position is on this. The game was pretty much balanced with all those other support units in mind (other than German turn 1 and why there is only 30 ap's). Releasing another 95 or so support battalions for use at divisional level for 1941 is going to cause balancing issues. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

You also need to recount all of the starting support units. There are 95 150mm or smaller German artillery support battalions inc rockets. 140 or so altogther inc larger than 150mm. So I have no idea where you are getting these much lower figures from.

Take that in comparison with only 10 stug and 3 flamm panzer. There are 45 pioneer and 10 antitank and an assortment of 7 or 8 others. Your original idea was arty period..that was all 140. Dropping the heavies out takes it down to 90 which is more reasonable but still nearly double what is there now. In 1943 or 1944 this probably wouldn't be a problem..but the first 6 months of 1941 it most likely will be.

Again, we need to hear from Joel or Gary on this to see if they are even willing to go along with a single arty attachment.

If you are going to make an argument, at least get the facts straight: Here is the list of German Artillery support battalions at the start of turn 1 of the 1941 Campaign: (I even numbered them to make it a bit easier)

1. 633rd Gun Bn (105)
2. 436th Gun Bn (105)
3. II/37th Howitzer Bn (150)
4. II/58th Howitzer Bn (150)
5. 536th Howitzer Bn (150)
6. 511th Gun Bn (150)
7. 611th Gun Bn (105)
8. II/59th Howitzer Bn (150)
9. II/67th Howitzer Bn (150)
10. I/52nd Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
11. II/52nd Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
12. III/52nd Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
13. II/61st Artillery Bn (105/150)
14. 531st Gun Bn (150)
15. I/818th Howitzer Bn (105)
16. 846th Howitzer Bn (150)
17. 850th Howitzer Bn (150)
18. 153rd Gun Bn (105)
19. II/47th Howitzer Bn (150)
20. 843rd Howitzer Bn (150)
21. II/72nd Howitzer Bn (105)
22. I/106th Artillery Bn (105/150)
23. 506th Howitzer Bn (150)
24. 526th Howitzer Bn (150)
25. I/71st Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
26. 625th Howitzer Bn (150)
27. II/57th Gun Bn (105)
28. 848th Howitzer Bn (150)
29. II/70th Artillery Bn (105/150)
30. I/51st Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
31. II/51st Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
32. III/51st Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
33. 842nd Gun Bn (105)
34. 847th Howitzer Bn (150)
35. 427th Gun Bn (105)
36. II/55th Howitzer Bn (150)
37. II/62nd Gun Bn (105)
38. 151st Gun Bn (105)
39. II/51st Artillery Bn (105/150)
40. II/38th Howitzer Bn (150)
41. II/39th Howitzer Bn (150)
42. 445th Gun Bn (105)
43. 634th Gun Bn (105)
44. IV/109th Artillery Bn (105/150)
45. II/44th Howitzer Bn (150)
46. III/111th Mountain Howitzer Bn (150)
47. 646th Howitzer Bn (150)
48. 680th Howitzer Bn (150)
49. I/55th Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
50. III/55th Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
51. II/41st Gun Bn (105)
52. II/43rd Howitzer Bn (150)
53. III/818th Howitzer Bn (150)
54. I/109th Gun Bn (105)
55. I/108th Artillery Bn (105/150)
56. 841st Howitzer Bn (150)
57. II/68th Gun Bn (105)
58. 711th Gun Bn (105)
59. 101st Howitzer Bn (150)
60. I/3rd Lehr Howitzer Bn (150)
61. 422nd Gun Bn (105)
62. II/71st Artillery Bn (105/150)
63. 631st Howitzer Bn (150)
64. II/53rd Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
65. III/53rd Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
66. 430th Gun Bn (105)
67. 709th Gun Bn (105)
68. II/66th Howitzer Bn (150)
69. 845th Howitzer Bn (150)
70. II/70th Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
71. II/69th Gun Bn (105)
72. II/42nd Howitzer Bn (150)
73. I/53rd Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
74. 740th Gun Bn (150)
75. II/40th Artillery Bn (105/150)
76. 3/800th Gun Bn (150)
77. 10th Mountain Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
78. II/46th Howitzer Bn (150)
79. II/65th Artillery Bn (105/150)
80. II/60th Gun Bn (105)
81. II/63rd Howitzer Bn (150)
82. 731st Gun Bn (150)
83. 800th Gun Bn (150)
84. I/54th Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
85. II/54th Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
86. 852nd Gun Battalion (105)
87. 844th Artillery Bn (105/150)
88. 849th Gun Bn (105)
89. II/64th Gun battalion (105)
90. III/70th Nebelwerfer Bn (150)
91. 602nd Artillery Bn (105/150)
92. II/52nd Artillery Bn (105/150)
93. 851st Howitzer Bn (150)
94. IV/207th Howitzer Bn (150)
95. II/53rd Howitzer Bn (150)

I think that what Andy is trying to say here is that as things presently stand, SU attachments are severely limited. You cannot in fact stuff every panzer and motorized division with goodies, let alone every division in the Wehrmacht. There's simply not enough butter to cover the bread. You might be able to get a few select divisions fully tricked out, but that's it.

However, this changes depending on arty SU availability. He isn't looking at the impact of this on any single engagement or unit, but globally. All of a sudden, it could be theoretically possible to stuff oh, a third of the Wehrmacht with attachments to the rim. More than that if you include the flak attachments, but arty+stug+pioneers certainly is enough to cover all you mobile units with plenty of arty left over.

While this might not seem like any big deal on a micro basis, it's not clear how it will affect the balance on the larger scale.

So it's not just a question of comparing a single division with 3 stugs or 3 pioneers attached to one with 3 arty attached. When you've got 10 stugs and a few dozen pioneers you clearly can't have that many divisions running around with 3 of each. Throw in artillery, and the picture changes.

I will say this from my perspective on the Soviet end: there's a big difference between a Red Army with a bunch of corps and no attachments and the one stuffed to the gills with attachments. This indeed is to a significant degree the difference between the 43 scenario and the 44 one. There's hundreds of APs invested into direct attachments in that 44 army and the weight does tell.