Quick Questions Thread

[Q-Ball]

“But how do you explain a situation where a cavalry corps, which is a mobile/fast unit, receives slow infantry brigades?”
“Or when the core unit itself is… weaker than every supporting unit?”

“I’m playing a game where, in March 1943, my opponent already has 42 Guards Infantry Corps. In a game like that, you simply lose all motivation. I conceded the game.”

The attachments might be an abstraction, because Soviets did historically use all those Brigades, Regts, etc, and that's the best way to get them on the map and actually fighting

A good Soviet player should have 30+ Guards Inf Corps by early 1943, or they're not doing it right.

[Wiedrock]

Does the Soviet player receive any bonuses during the winter of 1942/43? Or does the German side suffer any penalties? And does this situation change in the summer of 1943?
It is said that fortifications can be built up to level 1 if there is no contact with the enemy — what is the rationale behind this rather controversial mechanic?
Why is it possible to attach relatively large support units in the form of brigades to mobile units? This can result in “monster” formations, for example cavalry units reaching a strength of 23,000 men.

There are no inherent Soviet bonuses or German penalties in the 42/43 winter, or summer '43 campaigns. Germans are prepared for the Russian winter of '42/'43 (and at any rate it was not as harsh). However, you should notice that Soviet morale is rising, first in Sept '42, and later in Sept '43, while German morale is falling....so in that sense there are changes in overall capability

As far as attachments to Corps....this is totally WAD, as Soviets had alot of unit density. It's a key mechanic the Soviet player should be taking advantage of

“But how do you explain a situation where a cavalry corps, which is a mobile/fast unit, receives slow infantry brigades?”
“Or when the core unit itself is… weaker than every supporting unit?”

“I’m playing a game where, in March 1943, my opponent already has 42 Guards Infantry Corps. In a game like that, you simply lose all motivation. I conceded the game.”

1. Balancing/Bonuees/Penalties: As Q said, there are national Morale levels that change you should look into.
+ all Soviet MOTORIZED units should get +5NM in....IIRC September 1942 (or it's October...)

2. SUs:
The system has certainly some odd things if one uses it without limitations, but adding more rules to it (the code) would just add more things to wonder about like "why can't I assigne this SU?".
For Germans the Brigade sized Inf/MotInf SUs to a large degree once were removed by the Devs to be able to be SUs, but players complained and so they can be SUs. They are just a few in the end.
For Soviets you have plenty of large SUs of which some cause some of the observed weird things happening, as to enabling unrealistic levels of manpower/CV in tight spaces.

If you want more hitorical SU use, the easiest way to enable this is to make a houserule.
- "For Axis it could be as to not be allowed to assign more than 1 of each type and size of any SU to the same Division."
So you could only assign 1xInfantry Brigade, 1xInfantry Regiment and 1xInfantry Battalion (to give an example). This would also remove the fantasy level of attacks where you have 3 Infantry Divisions in an attack with 3xPioneer Battalion attached each. If a MotInf Brigade and a InfBrigade are the same (and so on, just as an example) one has to debate.
- For Soviets this would stop the doomstacking of Rifle Brigades on Rifle Corps or the Cavalry Corps as you mentioned which leads to weird and unhistoric figures. There I therefore disagree with what Q wrote.
If Soviet Rifle, Airborne, Naval, Ski, Mountain, Motorised, Mech Brigade are classified as the "same" for this limitation is up for debate again. Reasonable would probably be to make the Mot, Mech, Infantry (Rifle, Ski, Naval) and Airborne as 4 categories. Engineers for Soviets I would put separate and not limit their use personally.

Also possible to use a rule of "only use 2 of the same" on Soviet side and the "only use 1" for the Axis(or just for Germans) only.

3. GUARDS: The system already has limits to the max amount of GUARDS each category of Units can have, it's all in the living manual and should somewhat reflect historical figures.
The system therefore is limited but can not balance out good/bad players further.

[Adam1988]

There are no inherent Soviet bonuses or German penalties in the 42/43 winter, or summer '43 campaigns. Germans are prepared for the Russian winter of '42/'43 (and at any rate it was not as harsh). However, you should notice that Soviet morale is rising, first in Sept '42, and later in Sept '43, while German morale is falling....so in that sense there are changes in overall capability

As far as attachments to Corps....this is totally WAD, as Soviets had alot of unit density. It's a key mechanic the Soviet player should be taking advantage of

“But how do you explain a situation where a cavalry corps, which is a mobile/fast unit, receives slow infantry brigades?”
“Or when the core unit itself is… weaker than every supporting unit?”

“I’m playing a game where, in March 1943, my opponent already has 42 Guards Infantry Corps. In a game like that, you simply lose all motivation. I conceded the game.”

1. Balancing/Bonuees/Penalties: As Q said, there are national Morale levels that change you should look into.
+ all Soviet MOTORIZED units should get +5NM in....IIRC September 1942 (or it's October...)

2. SUs:
The system has certainly some odd things if one uses it without limitations, but adding more rules to it (the code) would just add more things to wonder about like "why can't I assigne this SU?".
For Germans the Brigade sized Inf/MotInf SUs to a large degree once were removed by the Devs to be able to be SUs, but players complained and so they can be SUs. They are just a few in the end.
For Soviets you have plenty of large SUs of which some cause some of the observed weird things happening, as to enabling unrealistic levels of manpower/CV in tight spaces.

If you want more hitorical SU use, the easiest way to enable this is to make a houserule.
- "For Axis it could be as to not be allowed to assign more than 1 of each type and size of any SU to the same Division."
So you could only assign 1xInfantry Brigade, 1xInfantry Regiment and 1xInfantry Battalion (to give an example). This would also remove the fantasy level of attacks where you have 3 Infantry Divisions in an attack with 3xPioneer Battalion attached each. If a MotInf Brigade and a InfBrigade are the same (and so on, just as an example) one has to debate.
- For Soviets this would stop the doomstacking of Rifle Brigades on Rifle Corps or the Cavalry Corps as you mentioned which leads to weird and unhistoric figures. There I therefore disagree with what Q wrote.
If Soviet Rifle, Airborne, Naval, Ski, Mountain, Motorised, Mech Brigade are classified as the "same" for this limitation is up for debate again. Reasonable would probably be to make the Mot, Mech, Infantry (Rifle, Ski, Naval) and Airborne as 4 categories. Engineers for Soviets I would put separate and not limit their use personally.

Also possible to use a rule of "only use 2 of the same" on Soviet side and the "only use 1" for the Axis(or just for Germans) only.

3. GUARDS: The system already has limits to the max amount of GUARDS each category of Units can have, it's all in the living manual and should somewhat reflect historical figures.
The system therefore is limited but can not balance out good/bad players further.

I agree with everything except the last point. Yes, I am clearly weaker than my opponent, BUT historically I did not suffer losses on this scale. About 18 divisions encircled in total by March ’43. And the game is punishing me as if I had done something unbelievably wrong. Because of this steamroller, by this point I’m already on the Dnieper, further back to Belarus and the river line near Riga. I haven’t lost a single armored division.

[Sertorius21]

An alternative way to deal with this is to allow only one echelon jump for SU attachments, so for instance from corps to division or army to corps. In this way, you would not see a Tiger II counterattacking near Novgorod during one week and Poltava the next one (that's assuming the said II was already attached to the first unit, but if not there is just a turn difference).

You would still be able to obtain those incredible concentrations with the Russian, but only by planning very carefully and with penalties attached to an excessive number of SUs per HQ. By the way, this is mostly true in 1942 as afterwards a lot of the brigades have been converted into divisions and then corps. We nearing the end of April 1943 and there are now at least 42 Guards infantry corps on the map. I am trying to find solutions against this...

The one echelon jump could be limited to downwards attachments, so it would always be possible to send an SU directly to Stavka or OKH.

[Adam1988]

An alternative way to deal with this is to allow only one echelon jump for SU attachments, so for instance from corps to division or army to corps. In this way, you would not see a Tiger II counterattacking near Novgorod during one week and Poltava the next one (that's assuming the said II was already attached to the first unit, but if not there is just a turn difference).

You would still be able to obtain those incredible concentrations with the Russian, but only by planning very carefully and with penalties attached to an excessive number of SUs per HQ. By the way, this is mostly true in 1942 as afterwards a lot of the brigades have been converted into divisions and then corps. We nearing the end of April 1943 and there are now at least 42 Guards infantry corps on the map. I am trying to find solutions against this...

The one echelon jump could be limited to downwards attachments, so it would always be possible to send an SU directly to Stavka or OKH.

The front line is so heavily shortened that some armored division in the rear will always respond. I’m focusing on the Dnieper line, but there is a small bridgehead in the Dnipropetrovsk area—fortunately under control; open terrain, easier to fight on. I don’t want it to expand there on open ground.

But having that many corps, he can boldly attack in four places at once… I’m in a worse situation than before Bagration, and it’s now the end of March 1943

[Wiedrock]

You had 2 years to shape the reality you have created. T1 is important, 41 is important, Winter 41 is important and 42 is important for that, so every phase and everything. We know nithing about anything of that in your game.

Overall it's not a Quick Question.
It's more a question needing a proper Thread on how to cope with a bad situation in Summer 43 as the Äxis.

[tyronec]

Why is it that German AS sometimes has a maximum range of 8 but sometimes you can go to 9 ?
This is early war, after T2 and using 109 F2s, though 109 F4s seem to be the same.

The first pic shows range 9 working.
The second/third pics is for a different AS AD. It works at 8 but at 9 it is showing 'out of range'.

a.jpg (340.43 KiB) Viewed 15 times

b.jpg (359.4 KiB) Viewed 15 times

c.jpg (389.33 KiB) Viewed 15 times

[Sammy5IsAlive]

@tyronec Is it maybe because in the second example they have to fly to the staging base?