Late War Command and Control

[ComradeP]

The biggest influence on National Morale is the quality and length of training that troops receive. German National Morale erodes during the game not because the German people were becoming war weary but because the Germans kept reducing the training period and broadening the recruitment pool to produce the replacements necessary for the front.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with automatic decreases in quality through the TOE, if that's really what the game does.

If the Axis don't take the historical amount of losses, which should be quite possible, they will end up with a lot of equipment and manpower in the pool.

An example: the game automatically switches German infantry TOE's to a new Welle every few years, as those Welle are introduced. That means the infantry strength will go down from 17.500-15.000 for early war divisions to divisions that are lucky if they can muster 10.000 troops. It has already been described that divisions can have more men than their TOE when it changes, but that won't change the TOE itself.

Let's say the Germans are doing fine and not taking millions of losses, nor are they losing whole divisions. An infantry division with a maximum paper strength of 15.500 men will convert through TOE to an infantry division with a strength of, say, 12.000 men. The division still has 15.500 men at that point until it starts taking losses. Unless I misunderstand the TOE system, unless the division loses 3.500 men/an equipment category goes below 100%, the unit won't get replacements.

Let's say the infantry division normally gets about 100 replacements/turn, which is a low figure. The replacements will stay in the pool as the division is above 100%. It doesn't sound so bad for a single unit, but now imagine 100 infantry divisions are above TOE strength. You have 10.000 men stuck in the pool every turn, because the TOE won't support larger units.

The main problem is that using historical TOE's for a game that will by default not follow history can cause all kinds of problems if the TOE's are fixed. The player also doesn't get to choose between: do I want bigger divisions or do I want more divisions, but they'll be forced to follow Hitler's fascination with having lots of divisions on paper which are all fairly weak. Hitler wanted more with less, but predictably got less with less. On the other hand, Soviet divisions will continue to grow in size.

The issue also applies to the kind of equipment: as the TOE's switch, German infantry formations will get a bicycle/foot Fusilier unit instead of motorcycle recon. It should in that case be possible to have a pool full of motorcycle recon units with nowhere to go. Panzer divisions automatically lose a Panzer battalion, and so on.

[USSLockwood]

It will not be historic, therefore unrealistic, if the shattered remnants of the Whermacht are able to zip around the map like Porsches as the Red Army crosses the Vistula. Look at all the encirclements the Germans suffered after Kursk. The Soviets had become much more nimble and the Germans, due in part to Hitler's interference, had become much less so.

[Obsolete]

Well, I do hope this doesn't turn out into a similar situation that reminded me of that last Colonization fiasco by Firaxis.  Just about anything you did that actually would IMPROVE your chances of winning, like doing anything to build a stronger colony, the game would scale the opposing side so you got no-where, or actually even more behind.

That was the most broken game (mechanic wise) I think most of us had ever had.  I wont even get into all the crazy exploits and other bad mechanics.  Let's just say I removed that PoS from my system pretty fast after release and will never touch that milking-product again.

[Helpless]

Small clarifications. Exiting units are not suffering any decrease (or increase) of morale or experience, because of National morale fluctuations. If you able to minimize (or maximize) your losses your units can look as good (or bad) as they were. National morale is just describing the "natural" limit your morale and experience can grow without any fighting experience. All elite units have morale and experience boost.

[ComradeP]

It will not be historic, therefore unrealistic, if the shattered remnants of the Whermacht are able to zip around the map like Porsches as the Red Army crosses the Vistula. Look at all the encirclements the Germans suffered after Kursk. The Soviets had become much more nimble and the Germans, due in part to Hitler's interference, had become much less so.

You're assuming there will be "shattered remnants of the Wehrmacht", which really doesn't have to be the case, hence my post/problem with the TOE system if it works like I'm assuming it works based on earlier posts.

I doubt many players would try a Kursk, attack the enemy where he's strongest, because it would simply sacrifice men for nothing. Likewise, I also have some reason to doubt most players would launch Fall Blau. The post-Kursk disasters for the Wehrmacht were the result of Hitler's policy and simply not having enough men and equipment. Although the quality of the equipment increased, that didn't have the effect it could have because the regiments/divisions were becoming smaller.

If you able to minimize (or maximize) your losses your units can look as good (or bad) as they were.

But in the German case they'd still eventually become less strong because their TOE changes, right? At least, that's what I thought I could deduce from something jaw or someone else involved with the project posted a while ago.

[HMSWarspite]

I assume there will be some win criterion during the game (as opposed to the end, i.e. if the Axis capture so many cities, or inflict so many losses on the Red Army at any time they win). Most of these worries will then be academic. If the Germans have not won by 1943, and they have still got an army where they could sustain the old TOE it must have been a remakably quiet game! I think people are worrying unnecessarly...

[Great_Ajax]

TO&Es are always a reflection of the needs of the time and I understand fully that if the Germans had been more successful that those TO&E changes would have been different. But how would you model these potential what if TO&Es? What if the Soviets do worse in your game than they did historically. How would the game model these potential TO&E changes? Who is the smart guy that is going to figure out a new and hypothetical TO&E for every possible historical outcome and then manage how the game switches and then test them out, etc. Eventually, you are going to have to make this game and develop some concrete goals to get this game published and tested and you are going to have to compromise and balance realism, historical correctness, and playability for a game that a broad band of people will be willing to pay and play this game. I see a lot of people focusing on narrow aspects because x feature isn't included or that x isn't modeled correctly but when you see the final product, I think most everyone will be satisfied. In the production process, you have to make those compromises or you end up with an unplayable spreadsheet.

Trey

[ComradeP]

If the Germans have not won by 1943, and they have still got an army where they could sustain the old TOE it must have been a remakably quiet game! I think people are worrying unnecessarly...

That depends, you don't need a quiet game not to lose the historical amount of men. Remove most of the casualties of the 1941-1942 winter offensive (halt early, dig in and prepare), the losses at Stalingrad (the Axis were there by choice and due to Hitler, not out of any strategic need, simply don't go there unless you have the men to guard the flinks) and those at Kursk (never attack where the enemy is strongest and expecting you) and by removing the losses of those battles alone the Axis would be in a much better shape. Heck, the minor Axis would still have their armies in that case. The Axis player can and should take care of his men.

TO&Es are always a reflection of the needs of the time and I understand fully that if the Germans had been more successful that those TO&E changes would have been different. But how would you model these potential what if TO&Es? What if the Soviets do worse in your game than they did historically. How would the game model these potential TO&E changes? Who is the smart guy that is going to figure out a new and hypothetical TO&E for every possible historical outcome and then manage how the game switches and then test them out, etc. Eventually, you are going to have to make this game and develop some concrete goals to get this game published and tested and you are going to have to compromise and balance realism, historical correctness, and playability for a game that a broad band of people will be willing to pay and play this game. I see a lot of people focusing on narrow aspects because x feature isn't included or that x isn't modeled correctly but when you see the final product, I think most everyone will be satisfied. In the production process, you have to make those compromises or you end up with an unplayable spreadsheet.

It's a problem other games have provided a practical solution for, which is why I think it shouldn't have to be in this game. TOAW gives a pretty good example of how it could be done: simply include both equipment categories, the old and the new.

For starters, many Soviet divisions start Barbarossa (seriously) understrength. The wrong way to handle that situation is to take the average strength of all those Soviet divisions and turn that into their 1941 TOE. The right way would be to take their allowed paper strength TOE. Even if the Soviets would not lose as many men as they did in real life, their command and control difficulties would still mean that the size of a Corps wouldn't change all that much. Besides, the Soviet player already gets to build his own divisions.

For the Axis, the mid-late war TOE problem seems to be fairly easy to solve in the same way TOAW solves it: include the old TOE equipment in the new TOE as long as it isn't outdated or if there's a logical reason why it shouldn't be there (such as foot infantry in a division that upgrades to a motorized/mechanized unit).

Note that I'm not asking for ahistorical TOE's, I'm only talking about the downsides of forcing a downgrade in TOE on the player.

Two examples:

In a mid-late war infantry unit, allow both motorcycle and leg/bicycle recon. If the player still has motorcycles in the pool, he'll be able to use them. If not, infantry recon elements will switch to foot/bicycle Fusilier battalions. Likewise, allow infantry divisions to draw enough infantry replacements to create early war size battalions (maximum strength of 800-900 men/battalion), instead of forcing the player to end up with ~600 men regiments.

In a mid-late war Panzer division, allow a tank strength of around 150 tanks (mostly medium), or two battalions of about 75 tanks as in real life.

That way, the Axis player wouldn't have to look at all kinds of equipment sitting in the pool because the TOE doesn't support them. Similarly, obsolete equipment could be "send" to minor Axis partners by a change in their TOE.

That would keep the game mostly historical without forcing a disadvantage on the Axis.

[Great_Ajax]

Thats a good point you make, Comrade. I would like to see what the equipment pool looks like once we are able to run a campaign scenario past a year. I agree that 1500 Mk-III tanks sitting in an equipment pool could be used by somebody whether its the Germans or one of their allies and maybe some open equipment slots could keep that equipment used in the war effort. I'll keep my eye on this one but I don't think we are at a point to evaluate any changes yet.

Trey

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

If the Germans have not won by 1943, and they have still got an army where they could sustain the old TOE it must have been a remakably quiet game! I think people are worrying unnecessarly...

That depends, you don't need a quiet game not to lose the historical amount of men. Remove most of the casualties of the 1941-1942 winter offensive (halt early, dig in and prepare), the losses at Stalingrad (the Axis were there by choice and due to Hitler, not out of any strategic need, simply don't go there unless you have the men to guard the flinks) and those at Kursk (never attack where the enemy is strongest and expecting you) and by removing the losses of those battles alone the Axis would be in a much better shape. Heck, the minor Axis would still have their armies in that case. The Axis player can and should take care of his men.

TO&Es are always a reflection of the needs of the time and I understand fully that if the Germans had been more successful that those TO&E changes would have been different. But how would you model these potential what if TO&Es? What if the Soviets do worse in your game than they did historically. How would the game model these potential TO&E changes? Who is the smart guy that is going to figure out a new and hypothetical TO&E for every possible historical outcome and then manage how the game switches and then test them out, etc. Eventually, you are going to have to make this game and develop some concrete goals to get this game published and tested and you are going to have to compromise and balance realism, historical correctness, and playability for a game that a broad band of people will be willing to pay and play this game. I see a lot of people focusing on narrow aspects because x feature isn't included or that x isn't modeled correctly but when you see the final product, I think most everyone will be satisfied. In the production process, you have to make those compromises or you end up with an unplayable spreadsheet.

It's a problem other games have provided a practical solution for, which is why I think it shouldn't have to be in this game. TOAW gives a pretty good example of how it could be done: simply include both equipment categories, the old and the new.

For starters, many Soviet divisions start Barbarossa (seriously) understrength. The wrong way to handle that situation is to take the average strength of all those Soviet divisions and turn that into their 1941 TOE. The right way would be to take their allowed paper strength TOE. Even if the Soviets would not lose as many men as they did in real life, their command and control difficulties would still mean that the size of a Corps wouldn't change all that much. Besides, the Soviet player already gets to build his own divisions.

For the Axis, the mid-late war TOE problem seems to be fairly easy to solve in the same way TOAW solves it: include the old TOE equipment in the new TOE as long as it isn't outdated or if there's a logical reason why it shouldn't be there (such as foot infantry in a division that upgrades to a motorized/mechanized unit).

Note that I'm not asking for ahistorical TOE's, I'm only talking about the downsides of forcing a downgrade in TOE on the player.

Two examples:

In a mid-late war infantry unit, allow both motorcycle and leg/bicycle recon. If the player still has motorcycles in the pool, he'll be able to use them. If not, infantry recon elements will switch to foot/bicycle Fusilier battalions. Likewise, allow infantry divisions to draw enough infantry replacements to create early war size battalions (maximum strength of 800-900 men/battalion), instead of forcing the player to end up with ~600 men regiments.

In a mid-late war Panzer division, allow a tank strength of around 150 tanks (mostly medium), or two battalions of about 75 tanks as in real life.

That way, the Axis player wouldn't have to look at all kinds of equipment sitting in the pool because the TOE doesn't support them. Similarly, obsolete equipment could be "send" to minor Axis partners by a change in their TOE.

That would keep the game mostly historical without forcing a disadvantage on the Axis.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

That depends, you don't need a quiet game not to lose the historical amount of men. Remove most of the casualties of the 1941-1942 winter offensive (halt early, dig in and prepare), the losses at Stalingrad (the Axis were there by choice and due to Hitler, not out of any strategic need, simply don't go there unless you have the men to guard the flinks) and those at Kursk (never attack where the enemy is strongest and expecting you) and by removing the losses of those battles alone the Axis would be in a much better shape. Heck, the minor Axis would still have their armies in that case. The Axis player can and should take care of his men.

Ah - the Germans dont make their mistakes but the Russians do...
If the Germans dont fight the battles, neither do the Russians, they dont lose the territory, the populations, the losses on the Russian side were horrendous. And by Kurzk it was all over bar the shouting anyway... However that is all detail, the point I was trying to make isn't that it isn't an issue, just not the be all and end all...

[ComradeP]

Ah - the Germans dont make their mistakes but the Russians do...
If the Germans dont fight the battles, neither do the Russians, they dont lose the territory, the populations, the losses on the Russian side were horrendous. And by Kurzk it was all over bar the shouting anyway... However that is all detail, the point I was trying to make isn't that it isn't an issue, just not the be all and end all...

The Soviets didn't have much of a choice, as the quality of their forces and tactical doctrine was so low before 1944 compared to the Germans that they would always be taking horrible losses. The Soviet defeats were a lot more likely to happen from a military perspective than the German ones, which usually came down to Hitler meddling with military strategy, not tactical incompetence. In the game, both sides probably won't make the historical mistakes, but that doesn't change that such a situation would favour the Germans more than the Soviets initially.

The Soviets will lose most or all of the Ukraine and probably everything west of Leningrad and Vyazma because they have little means to hold it. The Soviets will take heavy losses because they were not properly prepared for the kind of war they were fighting. You forget that the Germans have a choice to fight a battle or not in most cases, as they're the invaders. The Soviets don't have much of a choice as it's their country. If they don't find, they lose territory.

[HMSWarspite]

Yes, but the Germans lost 11% of their eastern front forces killed (20% total casualties) in the first 6 months (i.e. before the first of the issues raised) - see the AAR thread. If they had stopped there and waited for the Siberian divisions, they would have been in a better position, but they are still going to get a wall dropped on them... and the Russians have more time to evacuate, train etc. The Germans are not going to be able to maintain their initial TOE, the only debate is by which date...