Matrix Games Forums

I am afraid I don't know how to quote or I would quote Ed's reply to my post.

I place 1 inf division in the Pz Korp for three reasons.

The first is that sometimes the Pz Korp stand on the defence and for that a INF div adds a lot of strength.

The second reason is that the infantry is a breakthru force and then it forms the detachments that cover the trail of the leading Pz Divisions.

The 3rd reason is that the computer will reinforce the Pz Korp anyway and I get tired of removing the INF divisions so with the 1 INF division there anyway the Korp is full and will not be rienforced more. So I standardise on the Pz Korp formation at 2 Pz, 1 Motorised INF, 1 Foot INF, 1 JPz, 1 Flak, 2 Art. This makes the Korp well rounded and means I can forget about it in general. And with all the other stuff to worry about things I don't have to think about I like. Having an attack not work properly because I forgot to remove a INF division that got transfered in last turn and I missed would TICK ME OFF TO NO END!!!

That last bit is one of the main reasons I dislike the idea. If you checked to make sure that the numbers of motorised exceeded then I would have no problems because I can't imagine a legit formation with more foot than motorised units in it. Even at worst I have never seen more than 2 INF tranfered into a Pz Korp (happens with the 1st Pz Army and the 56 Pz Korp if memory serves...whichever one has the 2 SS Motorised INF divisions always seems to end up with a couple of infantry divisions).

I fully agree that the penelty past the 2nd movement for INF should be very high. I am surprised that Ed found such a small difference but the question on what the final supply level was might come into effect. Plot into a low supply (SL1 or SL2) and you should see an inf division which is effectively out of readiness.

I think that so long as there is more motorised divisions than foot divisions the Pz Korp or tank army should move the full 5. It should truncate to 2 if only INF exist in it and 0 if no combat divisions exist in it at all. Also remmeber that the same rules will apply to the russians and they historically did attach inf divisions to tank armies (not to mention the fact they have no motorised infantry for most of the game).

Another thing to conisider is that tank armies or Pz Korp are far more strategicly mobile (in the game) via marching than are infantry korp or armies. So you can march a Pz Korp full of Inf farther than you an Inf Korp.

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
So I standardise on the Pz Korp formation at 2 Pz, 1 Motorised INF, 1 Foot INF, 1 JPz, 1 Flak, 2 Art. This makes the Korp well rounded and means I can forget about it in general.

If your on the offensive keep inf types out of the HQ and let the HQ reinforce with motorized types or with cavalry or nothing at all, you need to have most of your strength on the map in attacking forces anyway. When on the defensive, you aren't interested in 5 plot movement so allowing inf in the corps is not a problem. This way you can forget about it in general without needing an inf div there.

Ok, folks lets forget the pre-move check. Obviously having an inf div in a panzer corps is convenient for a lot of people, lets just forget about those unimportant things like, say, the fact a foot inf division can't go as far and as fast as a motorized corps. No one needs to worry about minor details like that.

We'll get Arnauid to put say a 50% readiness penalty for an inf div in panzer corps per square moved. This will leave the inf div useless after 2 turns, which leads me to wonder why you would do that knowing whats going to happen to the inf div. If its useless after 2 moves, why keep it in to begin with? Convenience? If its convenience that you want, take the silly inf divs from your panzer group HQs, unless you're on defense, so you won't have to worry about an inf div getting in a panzer corps.

I have always assumed that the inf division in question contributed nothing after the first two attacks. This is basicly derived from watching the combats and could be wrong.

The game does not give sufficient numbers of motorised units to fill out even the starting Pz Korps to give them 8 units each so that they will not be reinforced automaticly. Nor do I like not having reinforcements unavailable, I consider reinforcements (or as I prefer to refer to them: reserves) a vital part of any operation offensive or defensive.

Nor am I advocating that a Pz Korp full of infantry division be able to plot 5 movement. That offends me horridly.

I adopted the standard that I did to produce a well balanced Pz Korp which I could basicly standardise on and then ignor. Just the same way I standardise my infantry Korp at 3 INF, 1 StG Batt, 1 ART, 1 Flak (though this varies a lot).

My personal feeling for what the Inf division is doing when the Pz Korp plots 5 movment is that after breaking thru the enemy they form the detachments left behind to guard the Korps flanks and rear and probably only do so for the first (at most 3) hexs the Korp plotted. How realistic this is is of course harder to quantify. They sure as hades are not up there with the lead panzers das ist sehr richtig!

Due to the fact that the game auto reinforces and that it is not always possible to get those units out of the Korp then you are left with the fact that you may have Pz Korp moving less than their full ploted movement because you plain forgot to take out a unit. This would drive me nuts, and after the third time I would stop playing because it is too frustrating. I believe you would react in the same fashion, yes or no?

I would much rather, if the truncation was added, have it the check be made during the plotting phase so that you have some warning a Pz Korp will not move 5. I could get used to not having the INF there. It is just an accoamadation I have reached with the game to make planning easier. I would rather be able to turn off reinforcement for a Korp just to prevent the HQ from sending flak out when I want the flak in the HQ protecting the airfields or something. This trouble probably goes away as the game goes on and more and more independant Pz and JPz units show up.

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
...
I would much rather, if the truncation was added, have it the check be made during the plotting phase so that you have some warning a Pz Korp will not move 5. I could get used to not having the INF there. It is just an accoamadation I have reached with the game to make planning easier. I would rather be able to turn off reinforcement for a Korp just to prevent the HQ from sending flak out when I want the flak in the HQ protecting the airfields or something. This trouble probably goes away as the game goes on and more and more independant Pz and JPz units show up.

This is a good idea. It starts to get into micromanagement, but players could use it or not at their discretion. Don't know how hard to implement it would be, though, especially with memory limits.

Regarding flak in units, the only thing flak on map in units does against air attacks is when the unit is being attacked by interdiction or combat attacks. It will not help against airfield attacks or strategic bombing, for those who don't know.

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
I have always assumed that the inf division in question contributed nothing after the first two attacks. This is basicly derived from watching the combats and could be wrong.

An inf div in a tank corps fighting on the 5 plot movement phase has a readiness of 27%, so inf divs are still affecting combat after 5 moves.

The game does not give sufficient numbers of motorised units to fill out even the starting Pz Korps to give them 8 units each so that they will not be reinforced automaticly. Nor do I like not having reinforcements unavailable, I consider reinforcements (or as I prefer to refer to them: reserves) a vital part of any operation offensive or defensive.

We just solved this problem in different ways.

Nor am I advocating that a Pz Korp full of infantry division be able to plot 5 movement. That offends me horridly.

It can, and it offends me just as much.

Due to the fact that the game auto reinforces and that it is not always possible to get those units out of the Korp then you are left with the fact that you may have Pz Korp moving less than their full ploted movement because you plain forgot to take out a unit. This would drive me nuts, and after the third time I would stop playing because it is too frustrating. I believe you would react in the same fashion, yes or no?

Yes, I would, and did, thats why I used my preferences to deal with this (only motorized units allowed in tank HQ to reinforce tank corps).

I would much rather, if the truncation was added, have it the check be made during the plotting phase so that you have some warning a Pz Korp will not move 5. I could get used to not having the INF there. It is just an accoamadation I have reached with the game to make planning easier. I would rather be able to turn off reinforcement for a Korp just to prevent the HQ from sending flak out when I want the flak in the HQ protecting the airfields or something. This trouble probably goes away as the game goes on and more and more independant Pz and JPz units show up.

This has come up for discussion before. We could have flags for each unit to control whether that unit can be used for reinforcments, or flags for each HQ or corps. Flags for each unit would be the best, but these ideas all require non-trivial code, and more precious RAM.

I prefer the idea of flags for each unit, at most it needs 800 bytes and an unknown amount of code. This may be something we just can't do, since we've already reached the point where WiR's memory size is a major problem.

How about ignoring the minimum readiness for inf type units to transfer from a tank corps to the tank corp's HQ? The transfer is *always* allowed, and the unit returns to the HQ with zero readiness. This eliminates the only problem a pre-movement check would have, but like you I hope for a more comprehensive solution.

muzrub.
in the 1944 campaign the german 3rd pz army controls 6,9,53 corps containing 6inf. divs ans 2 luft divs and army hq has 2 inf divs and an entire stug battalion.
surley this isint cricket?
in a game i am playing against an opponent who will remain nameless ,he has used this tactic and to coin a phrase, he has bled me dry as the russians.
other players have also emptied west and italian fronts , which to me seems unfair , but i say what the hell, its more for me to destroy in the long run.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


This has come up for discussion before. We could have flags for each unit to control whether that unit can be used for reinforcments, or flags for each HQ or corps. Flags for each unit would be the best, but these ideas all require non-trivial code, and more precious RAM.

I prefer the idea of flags for each unit, at most it needs 800 bytes and an unknown amount of code. This may be something we just can't do, since we've already reached the point where WiR's memory size is a major problem.

I think the flag system is a very good idea. If RAM is a problem, in my opinion it would be enough to implement flags for the HQs (HQ is allowed to give reinforcement or it is not).

How about ignoring the minimum readiness for inf type units to transfer from a tank corps to the tank corp's HQ? The transfer is *always* allowed, and the unit returns to the HQ with zero readiness. This eliminates the only problem a pre-movement check would have, but like you I hope for a more comprehensive solution.

The only problem with this could be that a Panzer Army HQ with only readiness 0 Divisions in it is defenceless. If a HQ gives away all its protecting Inf Divs in a combat phase and gets them back at readiness 0 in the next plotting phase, the HQ would be very vulnerable for overrunning. The idea with the flags sounds better and saver for the Panzer HQs (if it can be realized)

Moonfog

While I loathe the problems associated with the auto-reinforcement feature of the game, I am bit confused as to the goal here. If the purpose is to render infantry divisions as ineffective while in panzer groups, then can someone please show how this is historically more accurate than the system of readiness penalties that Gary Grigsby already included in the game or even demonstrate how this would make the game more historically accurate.

By looking at the history of just one German infantry division, I see that the 44.Infanterie-Division advanced an average of 29 kilometers per day while fighting over the period of 18 days (this was during the advance on Krakow and included crossing the Vistula River). This same infantry division was a component of the 1st Panzer Army's 3rd Panzer Korps during Barbarosa.

As the readiness penalties already have a dramatic effect on the combat capabilties of an infantry division advancing the full movement plot of a panzer group, wouldn't more penalties result in a less realistic game?

Again, I agree that the auto-reinforcement feature has problems and should be corrected. But, I am not convinced that Gary made a mistake with his treatment of infantry divisions in panzer groups. Considering historical references that seem consistant with the manner in which the game handles infantry divisions in panzer groups, is there something else that I am not understanding?

very interesting history. Perhaps the solution is the one originally proposed. by law or gentleman's agreement every panzer/tank corp army must contain one panzer tank division

Seems to me we have some kind of consensus on infantry divisions in Pz corps which plot 5 hexes. What does everyone think/feel about using panzer brigades, armored battalions (Stug, Jpz etc) and artillery/flak inside panzer corps? I've been on the receiving end of several of these 1 battalion tank armies busting clear through my lines and smashing up HQs.

As I said this is what I oppose at it makes the game, especially the 1942 scenario unplayable.
That is why I believe every panzer korps must contain one panzer division.

At one time during the testing process, that was a feature. And it was working great, I don't know what happened between test and release, but the intent was to not allow a tank/panzer unit to be created without a armored division put in it.

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
As I said this is what I oppose at it makes the game, especially the 1942 scenario unplayable.
That is why I believe every panzer korps must contain one panzer division.

---

Originally posted by JustAGame:
While I loathe the problems associated with the auto-reinforcement feature of the game, I am bit confused as to the goal here. If the purpose is to render infantry divisions as ineffective while in panzer groups, then can someone please show how this is historically more accurate than the system of readiness penalties that Gary Grigsby already included in the game or even demonstrate how this would make the game more historically accurate.

---

The readiness penalty imposed by Gary amounts to only a 15% readiness difference between an infantry division and mechanized divisions in a panzer corps after a 5 plot movement. Currently, an infantry division still provides 27% of itself to combat in the 5th plot of a panzer corps movement/combat. The motorized units have readiness in the 50% to 60% range, so the 27% of the inf div is significant. Neither one of these penalties is sufficient.

By looking at the history of just one German infantry division, I see that the 44.Infanterie-Division advanced an average of 29 kilometers per day while fighting over the period of 18 days (this was during the advance on Krakow and included crossing the Vistula River). This same infantry division was a component of the 1st Panzer Army's 3rd Panzer Korps during Barbarosa.

---

There are several infantry divisions assigned to panzer corps in ' 41. That doesn't mean they are up front with the motorized divisions during the deep penetrations. As moonfog suggests these divisions may have been "dropped off" to take up defensive positions to hold the breakthrough openings and/or the motorized divisions' rear. For all we know, the panzer armies created infantry corps for the infantry divisions that were assigned to them, or used the infantry as independent units, the WiR equivalent of an infantry corps with one infantry division in it.

As the readiness penalties already have a dramatic effect on the combat capabilties of an infantry division advancing the full movement plot of a panzer group, wouldn't more penalties result in a less realistic game?

---

My first paragraph makes it clear the effect of the readiness penalty is far from dramatic, it is in fact minor.

Do we agree that a foot-bound infantry division should not physically be able to arrive in the 5th square after a 5 square movement of a panzer corps with the mechanized divisions? If we agree with that, then we should either prevent non-motorized units from being added to panzer corps, or assess a movement penalty on panzer corps which have non-motorized divisions in them prior to movement, or apply a strong readiness penalty for non-motorized divisions in a panzer corps so they do not contribute to combat after 2 or 3 squares of movement. As I said earlier, the current penalties are not sufficient.

Again, I agree that the auto-reinforcement feature has problems and should be corrected. But, I am not convinced that Gary made a mistake with his treatment of infantry divisions in panzer groups.

---

Then you're probably the only one in this thread who believes so, except maybe Don (Don? should infantry move as fast and as far as motorized divisions?). I haven't seen anyone who says an unmotorized infantry division should be able to keep up with motorized divisons for a full 5 square movement, much less provide combat assistance to motorized units after 4 squares of movement followed by combat.

Considering historical references that seem consistant with the manner in which the game handles infantry divisions in panzer groups, is there something else that I am not understanding?

---

Your historical reference of the 44th is interesting. 29 kilometers is ~20 miles and in WiR a square is about ~20 miles across, so given a WiR turn of 7 days, this adds up to a non-motorized unit moving 7 squares in WiR in one turn while fighting!

Now, either there is something wrong with the accuracy of this statement about the 44th (I doubt it), or the unit was motorized at the time and the opposition was light (there is one reference I found that makes me suspect it might have been motorized; but even then I doubt this explanation as well), or Gary's WiR is flawed in terms of corps movement, and the whole time/distance/speed thing is screwed up (looks like it).

More importantly though, I know of two references concerning the breakout in Operation Cobra and Patton's 3rd Army's race to the Rhine. Two references to speed are made: 40 miles per day, and 50 miles per day. Since the 20 mile per day reference is mentioned as an amazing feat for the 44th, its highly unlikely it could have gone any faster. So clearly, motorized units could move twice as fast than the 44th. Thus the fundamental speed balance (2 to 1) between non-motorized units and motorized units is still in force.

Anyway, if we accept 20 miles per day for infantry, thus 7 square movement for an infantry corps in a turn, then we must assign 18 squares per turn movement for motorized corps! Interestingly, this may mean WiR is very unrealistic about corps movement vis-a-vis the map scale, yet it is/was balanced correctly as evidenced by the German advance, in WiR games that use the historical strategy, being stopped along historical lines, give or take a couple of squares.

I'm interested in more info about this. Does anybody have other evidence about the speed of advance by a CORPS sized unit in WWII?

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

I would like to thank Alexy (I hope my memory is right here) for a message on how to quote things. I am upgrading to a new computer and so messages are on two different computers at the moment.

Ed asks... I'm interested in more info about this. Does anybody have other evidence about the speed of advance by a CORPS sized unit in WWII?

---

If I was home in Canada I could provide you with all the information you want but here in Germany I don't have access to my reference books.

One thing to remember is that the game allows for fast marching of units which is close to what you would expect from a Korp advancing over friendly territory.

Another is that Patton stripped basicly the rest of his forces of all trucks (rendering them effectively immobile) to keep his fast moving units supplied. The distance a Korp can move in combat is not determined by how fast its units can move but how fast it can be resupplied and that is dependant on both the number of trucks available, the distance the trucks have to move back and forth plus the road network it must deal with. So how far a Korp could advance in WIR has to be sort of an average value since the road net is not modeled.

A INF Korp advancing on the order of 60 km in a week assuming combat or the preparation for combat is not unreasonable. Forced march or good roads could improve this significantly. But when comparing movment remember the distance it could move via marching too...this is what you should compare high speed movement too.

As far as allowing the transfer of INF to the Korp HQ regardless of readiness goes I have no objections.

I am still concerned that we might be effecting the soviets in a negative way with all these changes, although I don't think so. I seem to recall that I could easily make up a unit with a mech corp, 2-3 tank corp, 1 AT, 1 FLK, 2 ARTY and a calvary unit for each tank army without too much difficulty.

Its too bad that you could not make calvary armies with the potential of 3 or 4 movements to simulate the soviet use of calvary formations.

Truncating a Korp-armies movement to 0 if it does not contain at least 1 stacking pt seems to be vital since this 1 tank battalion running around and cutting units off is just as silly as a "Pz" Korp with only infantry plotting 5. Though to be honest I don't understand why people do such things when playing the game ... sigh.

Well since you asked, Ed.... <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
I don't see anything wrong with having an infantry division in a panzer/tank shell as long as the readiness penalty for any movement above 2 hexes is realistic. This would not only be for normal plot movement but also march movement also since an armored corps can move up to 10 hexes. If we start stringing out units in a corps due to there relative movement and speed, then we would have to break the game down to shells of individual divisions. The TOAW scenario of Barbarossa has units broken down to this scale and while correct, it has taken me up to 3 hours to complete a single movement/combat phase.
With the limitations placed on WIR, due to it being designed for DOS, my thought would be that the only possible solution would be an increase in the readiness penalty. Any infantry division in a armored shell after a movement of 10 hexes would be reduced to 0 percent readiness. Perhaps after a plot of 5 hexes maybe 20 percent readiness over clear terrain hexes. That would be considering no combat during those plots, so any combat plots would more than likely cause a further reduction in readiness, since I would think that any infantry division that had fought over a 100 mile span during one weeks time would be down to nearly 0 percent readiness. Also terrain would also cause an increase in readiness reduction like it does now.
I would think that could cause most player's to reconsider creating armored shells with only infantry in them as they could be rendered completely useless after plotting. And also nothing would need to be done to prevent HQ's from reinforcing armored units with infantry. If the armored unit is only plotting a couple of hexes, the infantry would not suffer heavy readiness penalties other than the normal combat and stacking penalties. If the unit is included in any plots past that point, it would suffer higher penalties.

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Another is that Patton stripped basicly the rest of his forces of all trucks (rendering them effectively immobile) to keep his fast moving units supplied. The distance a Korp can move in combat is not determined by how fast its units can move but how fast it can be resupplied and that is dependant on both the number of trucks available, the distance the trucks have to move back and forth plus the road network it must deal with. So how far a Korp could advance in WIR has to be sort of an average value since the road net is not modeled.

---

Good point, but I think the taking of trucks from motorized infantry to use as supply trucks wasn't just done by Patton, the entire front in France was desparately short of supplies because they didn't have enough trucks to move the stuff from Normandy and other ports to the fast moving units.

A INF Korp advancing on the order of 60 km in a week assuming combat or the preparation for combat is not unreasonable. Forced march or good roads could improve this significantly. But when comparing movment remember the distance it could move via marching too...this is what you should compare high speed movement too.

---

Yes, a week is no problem, but 40 miles per day won't cut it, not for unmotorized infantry.

Its too bad that you could not make calvary armies with the potential of 3 or 4 movements to simulate the soviet use of calvary formations.

---

But we can! In the next version cavalry will be considered "motorized" and can move in a panzer corps 5 squares with no readiness penalty. Since the Axis only have about 6 cavalry divisions while the Soviets have a bunch of them, this definitely is an advantage for the Soviets.

Truncating a Korp-armies movement to 0 if it does not contain at least 1 stacking pt seems to be vital since this 1 tank battalion running around and cutting units off is just as silly as a "Pz" Korp with only infantry plotting 5.

---

Yes, a minimum of one division should be it.

Though to be honest I don't understand why people do such things when playing the game ... sigh.

---

I'll stay away from this comment, since its dangerously close to the subject of the last heated debate we had around here. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Don Shafer:

...
{snip}
...

---

Agreed. I don't have a problem with a readiness penalty, it just needs to be 3 or 4 times larger than it is now, and it should be per plotted square, not per turn. Per turn is ok for the "strategic movement" (10 squares for a panzer corps).

And also nothing would need to be done to prevent HQ's from reinforcing armored units with infantry. If the armored unit is only plotting a couple of hexes, the infantry would not suffer heavy readiness penalties other than the normal combat and stacking penalties. If the unit is included in any plots past that point, it would suffer higher penalties.

---

Yes, but I still want to be able to control automatic reinforcement one day, since it can be really annoying at times. Having to go through all your units next turn to pull reinforcing units back to their HQs is tedious.

Frankly, I think the whole reinforcing business should be made virtual. The program calculates the readiness for the reinforcing unit to move to the combat square, the game executes the combat using the reinforcing unit's additions to the combat based on its readiness. After the combat the reinforcing unit receives the normal readiness and physical losses for the combat, and the readiness losses for the movement necessary to "return" to the HQ, but during the entire procedure, the reinforcing unit technically never leaves the HQ, and is in the HQ at the start of the next turn. Now that is what I call "automatic reinforcement". <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

(This would still be a good idea if the actual readiness costs for movement couldn't be calculated for some reason. In this case use an arbitrary readiness penalty (this is being done now, right? Don? Rick?), half of that is taken at the beginning and the other half is taken after combat.)

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


I'm interested in more info about this. Does anybody have other evidence about the speed of advance by a CORPS sized unit in WWII?

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

---

Ed,

If you consider the American 18th Airborne Corp in December 1944 as an example, they were alerted on the morning of the 17th in Rheims ,France while in reserve. The 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions got started by the evening of the 17th after drawing rations and ammunition. About 36 hours later they were deploying in defensive positions in Werbomont and Bastogne respectively, about 100 miles away.

Svar

Originally posted by Svar:


Ed,

If you consider the American 18th Airborne Corp in December 1944 as an example, they were alerted on the morning of the 17th in Rheims ,France while in reserve. The 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions got started by the evening of the 17th after drawing rations and ammunition. About 36 hours later they were deploying in defensive positions in Werbomont and Bastogne respectively, about 100 miles away.

Svar

---

But those troops moved behind the lines, in friendly territory and under complete air protection resembling very much a peace time excercise, correct? So this example as such doesn't apply to plotting, which is (IMO) moving in hostile territory in an attack formation.

In wir you already can move your armies 100 miles in your own territory by using the march-command.

Originally posted by Svar:

If you consider the American 18th Airborne Corp in December 1944 as an example, they were alerted on the morning of the 17th in Rheims ,France while in reserve. The 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions got started by the evening of the 17th after drawing rations and ammunition. About 36 hours later they were deploying in defensive positions in Werbomont and Bastogne respectively, about 100 miles away.

---

Well, two light infantry divisions moving in controlled territory going to separate locations wasn't what I had in mind. Also, both the 82nd and 101st were taken to their destination by trucks. So, for our purposes, we'd have to classify them as independent (of one another) motorized infantry divisions.

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>