Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
It then penetrates a (very light) defensive belt, for a further 30 miles, crossing a minor river in the process. And in fact it is this minor river than halts further movement as it would be home free without this if I can count, and able to go another 10-20 miles. So, 60 miles into enemy territory, half of which has some troops in, and crosses 2 rivers in a week, and with a unit that is not absolutely at full supply (47 vs 50MP). What examples have we got of that in RL, and how short of distance are we? Do we want to go through that belt as if it isn't there?

A hex is 10km not miles IIRC.


20km per Regiment is about what the Axis defenders on the shoulders were covering in Uranus, but this was a fairly continues albeit thinly held belt.

In Michaels example I don't see a defensive belt. It's is a series of widely spaced out immobile unsupported units. If one wants to make a Uranus defence, then put ants in the intervening areas which force an attack, and appropriate delay and most importantly, exposes the defender to defeat in detail for little return. If this is really deemed desirable then by all means allow the breakdown of brigades. However I doubt anybody would do it, because it makes no sense in nearly all cases.

Right now those brigades have the best of both worlds, defend as compact units, delay without any risk as if they were thinly scraped across the landscape.

It should be either or.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
It is worth noting that, yes the para Bde probably only present on 1/4 or 1/3 of the frontage it covers. However no one has mentioned that the Panzer div has a frontage and a volume as well. It also has second echelon frorces, Btn HQs, supply trucks, soft skin vehicles etc. Now, it could squeeze itself through gaps on a 1 btn front (in which case it becomes very long and thin). The game doesnt allow the division the change shape like that, ad so we need to be ever so carefully allowing massive moves through zones like this.

I've never heard of a 10km march frontage for a battalion, but that just me. Yes, you are correct that part of the panzer division is somewhere in aether, but the gap is still easily 15km wide, which is huge. Which is why nobody would use a deployment as depicted.

Either more spread out, a true screen, or more compact.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
However, my opinion isnt worth anything in this debate. What historical evidence is there - either doctrinal, or real war, that says what should happen in this case? I have not got time to research at the moment, but I think the fastest 'normal' sustained advance in WW2 was about 30 miles a day, without major geographic obstacles or enemy resistance. Maybe opening of Barbarossa was faster?

IIRC the above is from WA in Northern Europe after the break out. Barbarossa AGC was 30km/day in the first three weeks, including the border battles.

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
It then penetrates a (very light) defensive belt, for a further 30 miles, crossing a minor river in the process. And in fact it is this minor river than halts further movement as it would be home free without this if I can count, and able to go another 10-20 miles. So, 60 miles into enemy territory, half of which has some troops in, and crosses 2 rivers in a week, and with a unit that is not absolutely at full supply (47 vs 50MP). What examples have we got of that in RL, and how short of distance are we? Do we want to go through that belt as if it isn't there?

A hex is 10km not miles IIRC.

From the manual, para 2.2, a hex is 10 miles

20km per Regiment is about what the Axis defenders on the shoulders were covering in Uranus, but this was a fairly continues albeit thinly held belt.

In Michaels example I don't see a defensive belt. It's is a series of widely spaced out immobile unsupported units. If one wants to make a Uranus defence, then put ants in the intervening areas which force an attack, and appropriate delay and most importantly, exposes the defender to defeat in detail for little return. If this is really deemed desirable then by all means allow the breakdown of brigades. However I doubt anybody would do it, because it makes no sense in nearly all cases.

Right now those brigades have the best of both worlds, defend as compact units, delay without any risk as if they were thinly scraped across the landscape.

It should be either or.

But any defence less dense than 1 brigade per 10 miles will have to be like this (within the game). There is no other way of doing it. And they have only the best of both worlds if they cant be quickly defeated by the Panzer div.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
It is worth noting that, yes the para Bde probably only present on 1/4 or 1/3 of the frontage it covers. However no one has mentioned that the Panzer div has a frontage and a volume as well. It also has second echelon frorces, Btn HQs, supply trucks, soft skin vehicles etc. Now, it could squeeze itself through gaps on a 1 btn front (in which case it becomes very long and thin). The game doesnt allow the division the change shape like that, ad so we need to be ever so carefully allowing massive moves through zones like this.

I've never heard of a 10km march frontage for a battalion, but that just me. Yes, you are correct that part of the panzer division is somewhere in aether, but the gap is still easily 15km wide, which is huge. Which is why nobody would use a deployment as depicted.

Either more spread out, a true screen, or more compact.

Who said anything about a 10km march frontage for a battalion? I meant that whilst a division could advance on a 1km frontage in theory, in reality it has a much wider front and cannot slip through small gaps in defence lines

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
However, my opinion isnt worth anything in this debate. What historical evidence is there - either doctrinal, or real war, that says what should happen in this case? I have not got time to research at the moment, but I think the fastest 'normal' sustained advance in WW2 was about 30 miles a day, without major geographic obstacles or enemy resistance. Maybe opening of Barbarossa was faster?

IIRC the above is from WA in Northern Europe after the break out. Barbarossa AGC was 30km/day in the first three weeks, including the border battles.

Barbarossa (first turn at least) has special rules in the game so we should not compare normal game rules with the first week. Only examples from after that are applicable.

I am not arguing that the situation is ideal at present. I am just advocating caution before a great deal of effort is spent on changing a rule that, I think, makes little actual difference in game. I think the defense like the one illustrated is easily sorted by attacking the brigades with the first unit and not bypassing them. They will rout if not worse, and then the follow on units can drive through at full speed. I would love the opportunity to chew up all those units, or pocket them.

Back to the Zocs. WHat Zoc should a stack of 2 Bdes have? what about 2 Bdes with TOE of 50% each? What about a division with TOE of 33%?

Thanks Mechfo, what you said was well put.

John, I think the easiest improvement is to simply do what Mechfo said.

Easiest would be to just take ZOC away from non-Mot Brigades/Regiments

I agree with this. I have said as much previously. Sure more complex methods could be devised. But they would not fly with the devs.

What would the effect be? Players would no longer be able to deploy totally unrealistic defensive/delay carpets/lines base on ants. They would have to use larger units. OR use more ants that form continuous lines. Either way you make the ant zoc carpet a thing of the past. In one swoop you remove a ridiculous defensive technique. And move WITE 2.0 up in the scale of realism.

The flip side is, you say removing zocs from these units will unbalance the game. IMO no it won't. Players will still have the resources to build effective defenses. But they will have to be more selective. Not simply blanket the map with a carpet of ants.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
It then penetrates a (very light) defensive belt, for a further 30 miles, crossing a minor river in the process. And in fact it is this minor river than halts further movement as it would be home free without this if I can count, and able to go another 10-20 miles. So, 60 miles into enemy territory, half of which has some troops in, and crosses 2 rivers in a week, and with a unit that is not absolutely at full supply (47 vs 50MP). What examples have we got of that in RL, and how short of distance are we? Do we want to go through that belt as if it isn't there?

A hex is 10km not miles IIRC.

From the manual, para 2.2, a hex is 10 miles

Thank you. This makes the situation in Michaels example even more ridiculous. Fairly compact units along 7-8km (they are defending with full strength when attacked) with gaps 20-25km are supposed to be able to "screen" a front of 30km.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
20km per Regiment is about what the Axis defenders on the shoulders were covering in Uranus, but this was a fairly continues albeit thinly held belt.

In Michaels example I don't see a defensive belt. It's is a series of widely spaced out immobile unsupported units. If one wants to make a Uranus defence, then put ants in the intervening areas which force an attack, and appropriate delay and most importantly, exposes the defender to defeat in detail for little return. If this is really deemed desirable then by all means allow the breakdown of brigades. However I doubt anybody would do it, because it makes no sense in nearly all cases.

Right now those brigades have the best of both worlds, defend as compact units, delay without any risk as if they were thinly scraped across the landscape.

It should be either or.

But any defence less dense than 1 brigade per 10 miles will have to be like this (within the game). There is no other way of doing it. And they have only the best of both worlds if they cant be quickly defeated by the Panzer div.

Why is it necessary? If you don't have the necessary units you shorten the line, refuse a flank, or accept the fact you can't cover it effectively. We are not modelling NA here but WITE. Unit densities should be sufficient, and if you really feel it's a problem, as mentioned, then advocate allowing brigades to break down. I don't think it's necessary, but I don't think it would be a huge problem either.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
It is worth noting that, yes the para Bde probably only present on 1/4 or 1/3 of the frontage it covers. However no one has mentioned that the Panzer div has a frontage and a volume as well. It also has second echelon frorces, Btn HQs, supply trucks, soft skin vehicles etc. Now, it could squeeze itself through gaps on a 1 btn front (in which case it becomes very long and thin). The game doesnt allow the division the change shape like that, ad so we need to be ever so carefully allowing massive moves through zones like this.

I've never heard of a 10km march frontage for a battalion, but that just me. Yes, you are correct that part of the panzer division is somewhere in aether, but the gap is still easily 15km wide, which is huge. Which is why nobody would use a deployment as depicted.

Either more spread out, a true screen, or more compact.

Who said anything about a 10km march frontage for a battalion? I meant that whilst a division could advance on a 1km frontage in theory, in reality it has a much wider front and cannot slip through small gaps in defence lines

I don't understand what your point is. The gap is 20-25 km across, with no possible method of intervention without several hours of warning by any neighbouring unit. This is plenty of space by any measure.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
However, my opinion isnt worth anything in this debate. What historical evidence is there - either doctrinal, or real war, that says what should happen in this case? I have not got time to research at the moment, but I think the fastest 'normal' sustained advance in WW2 was about 30 miles a day, without major geographic obstacles or enemy resistance. Maybe opening of Barbarossa was faster?

IIRC the above is from WA in Northern Europe after the break out. Barbarossa AGC was 30km/day in the first three weeks, including the border battles.
[/quote]

Barbarossa (first turn at least) has special rules in the game so we should not compare normal game rules with the first week. Only examples from after that are applicable.

Quick perusal shows Smolensk battles has several instances of penetrations with 50-70km in 2-3 days but with heavy fighting. It incidently also shows battalions having frontages of up to 10km, and getting chewed up as a result. I wonder why. Obviously they had the power of the entire division with them when attacked.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
I am not arguing that the situation is ideal at present. I am just advocating caution before a great deal of effort is spent on changing a rule that, I think, makes little actual difference in game. I think the defense like the one illustrated is easily sorted by attacking the brigades with the first unit and not bypassing them. They will rout if not worse, and then the follow on units can drive through at full speed. I would love the opportunity to chew up all those units, or pocket them.

Back to the Zocs. WHat Zoc should a stack of 2 Bdes have? what about 2 Bdes with TOE of 50% each? What about a division with TOE of 33%?

I'm not looking for the perfect solution, just one that disables one of the gamiest and most ridiculous of tactics.

AIUI the rule can be changed without much effort, as some kind of toggle already exists.

2 Bde would still have no ZOC, again still no arty and player clearly has choice between "screen" and "strongpoint". Understrength division, obviously would still have one since I doubt the toggle is dynamic.

I guess my other question is if this "ant" is in the way and exerting a zoc that is going to cost you 8 MP to move through why arent u just using a hasty attack to push it out of the way and maybe even rout/shatter it.......As that is the quickest in manner of MP expenditure way of removing this impediment.....ohhh because you want to encircle them to get the 100% surrender while they stand there doing nothing in an IGO UGO game is why......

I dont see the big deal other than some people just want to game the system more...you can already easily herd defending units into pockets if you use some timing/skill/and cycling of unit movement even with carpet defenses and current Zoc penalties......so IMO its not an issue. Hasty attacks by full divisions easily deal with ants, it just makes it harder to get all the ants into pockets which is fine and i think more realistic than just driving by them to pocket them all why they stand there looking on in awe.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Thanks Mechfo, what you said was well put.

John, I think the easiest improvement is to simply do what Mechfo said.

Easiest would be to just take ZOC away from non-Mot Brigades/Regiments

I agree with this. I have said as much previously. Sure more complex methods could be devised. But they would not fly with the devs.

What would the effect be? Players would no longer be able to deploy totally unrealistic defensive/delay carpets/lines base on ants. They would have to use larger units. OR use more ants that form continuous lines. Either way you make the ant zoc carpet a thing of the past. In one swoop you remove a ridiculous defensive technique. And move WITE 2.0 up in the scale of realism.

The flip side is, you say removing zocs from these units will unbalance the game. IMO no it won't. Players will still have the resources to build effective defenses. But they will have to be more selective. Not simply blanket the map with a carpet of ants.

The game must also cater for those who play against the AI. Any change must be AI compatible.

I doubt the AI would use a carpet or zoc lock of ant's. But I have never played the AI so maybe someone could confirm that.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I guess my other question is if this "ant" is in the way and exerting a zoc that is going to cost you 8 MP to move through why arent u just using a hasty attack to push it out of the way and maybe even rout/shatter it.......As that is the quickest in manner of MP expenditure way of removing this impediment.....ohhh because you want to encircle them to get the 100% surrender while they stand there doing nothing in an IGO UGO game is why......

I dont see the big deal other than some people just want to game the system more...you can already easily herd defending units into pockets if you use some timing/skill/and cycling of unit movement even with carpet defenses and current Zoc penalties......so IMO its not an issue. Hasty attacks by full divisions easily deal with ants, it just makes it harder to get all the ants into pockets which is fine and i think more realistic than just driving by them to pocket them all why they stand there looking on in awe.

there is a specific issue for WiTE2 that is not in WiTE. At the moment, unused movement points are converted into 'preparation points' - in effect a % boost to your attacking cv. You can lose these (partially) if you are forced to defend or substantially if you attack (at the moment anything).

So stepping on an ant triggers the loss of (most of) your preparation points.

Its a game system that seems to be evolving a lot (how to gain, how to lose) but I think its going to be important given the practicalities of the new map layout. It also fits with the supply build model pre-offensive and so on. So a well prepared offensive that you have built up for will make inroads. But at a cost - not least the new combat engine means its combat that kills not retreat. I'm doing a test PBEM at the moment and two attacks on a well dug in Soviet position cost me around 10,000 losses (and them not far behind).

But while I have some sympathy for MichealT's argument I think he's on the wrong track. In part, as I've suggested, most brigades, esp for the Soviets in 1941 are better off off-map than on-map. No-one has a clue what the dynamics for 1942 will be (but similar factors will be in play). The other reason is I don't think the real balance issue will have much to do with zoc costs and more to do with the interaction of prep points and combat.

As to the zoc issue, the other way to frame it is that over a certain size of defenders should project a hard zoc (ie you can't move through). It would model one of the Soviet foul ups during Mars when they lost a cavalry corps trying to slip it into the gap between German positions. Of course, it too would change some fundamental interactions embedded into the game balance.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I guess my other question is if this "ant" is in the way and exerting a zoc that is going to cost you 8 MP to move through why arent u just using a hasty attack to push it out of the way and maybe even rout/shatter it.......As that is the quickest in manner of MP expenditure way of removing this impediment.....ohhh because you want to encircle them to get the 100% surrender while they stand there doing nothing in an IGO UGO game is why......

I dont see the big deal other than some people just want to game the system more...you can already easily herd defending units into pockets if you use some timing/skill/and cycling of unit movement even with carpet defenses and current Zoc penalties......so IMO its not an issue. Hasty attacks by full divisions easily deal with ants, it just makes it harder to get all the ants into pockets which is fine and i think more realistic than just driving by them to pocket them all why they stand there looking on in awe.

Thank you - my very point.

ORIGINAL: loki100

...

As to the zoc issue, the other way to frame it is that over a certain size of defenders should project a hard zoc (ie you can't move through). It would model one of the Soviet foul ups during Mars when they lost a cavalry corps trying to slip it into the gap between German positions. Of course, it too would change some fundamental interactions embedded into the game balance.

I completely agree with this, it is in fact what would want (rather than the simpler 'regt doesn't do ZoC, Div does' model). The only snag is back to my post that Micheal T didn't seem to understand. Size, defined how? Pure number of men - obviously not right. CV? But a lower CV mobile unit would have less ZoC than a large static one potentially. I would very much go for this system IF it doesn't introduce more issues than it solves, and the AI can play with it (both attacking and defending.

BTW, in all the years that Pelton has been playing the game and pointing out issues (and whatever I feel about his style of post and analysis of the desired outcomes, his detection and highlighting of game issues is very good), I don't recall him ever highlighting diffuse carpets of brigades as an issue. I haven't kept up wit the forum continuously, but he has complained about 3 deep continuous walls (divisions at the front and maybe brigades at the rear), not these 'zoc walls'.

And I still think that at game level this is not a factor. Don't avoid them, attack them. The second division in your attack will go through the resulting hole and away you go... With combat delays, this will change for WITE2, but lots of things will do that and we can't assess the ZOC issue for that game until we can all see it.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
anything smaller than a division exerts no added MP cost for zoc to zoc movement, or for units crossing a river in to said ant zoc's.

And then we arrive at the problem of nominal unit sizes and real unit sizes. To me real unit sizes (men or load-based for physical-related aspects and CV-based for combat-related aspects) should be used everytime in place of the nominal (and I added this in many places to WitE1, but not in all). As you know there are CV2 corps (early Soviet mechanized with no experience), CV1 divisions (Soviet ants), CV5 brigades (900th Lehr, SS motorized) and CV6 regiments (203rd Panzer Regiment). I assume a German regiment with 140 tanks has greater impact on enemy movement than a Soviet regiment with 20 light SP guns... This is not meant to sound anti-Soviet, but simply reflects their naming scheme was at least one level off from the German and Western one (their tank corps was like a division etc).

ORIGINAL: MechFO

A foot mobile brigades/regiments sphere of influence is maybe 7-8 km across at maximum, at least if it wants to maintain ANY defensive capability (which unit commanders normally want to do).

It has neither the mobility nor the means to reach out any further. Neither does it have the ability to push much more than a company or 2 forward into the surrounding 600km2 (or 300km2 if taking into account only most likely axis of advance), and if they are pushed forward vs. an enemy with superior mobility they are at risk if being lost or bypassed. Those companies spheres are maybe 1km2, max.

In combat order that brigade/regiment will advance maybe 2-3 km/hour (being generous), ample time for any reaction, especially by a mechanized force, and very vulnerable to counter attack or artillery.

Them being able to influence movement so far away does not make sense.

The unit setup that michael shows above does not make sense in any kind of real world situation, yet makes perfect sense in WITE, which should indicate that something fundamental is wrong with the ZOC mechanic.

ZOC mobility costs can f.e. be because of:

- use of alternative roads
- necessity of screening + having reserves or extra tasking of reserve function to transiting units
- increased readiness or combat order instead of march order
etc.

However all of the above will be made due to threat assessment, and a foot mobile company stranded somewhere is not going to send anybody into big bursts of activity.

I broadly agree with your RL points. However, how in the game do you model a defense that is purely to delay and inhibit? In game, the weakest line that could be set up (under the no brigade ZOC system) would be continuous brigade lines, that is about 50% of the front covered by proper defensive positions (from your numbers). What if I want platoons or smaller, scattered around not mutually supporting, whose job it is to snipe one or two men, or hit a vehicle with the sole aim of causing 30 mins delay, or an hour, over and over again? In your analysis there is no difference between advancing into terrain where there is not a single enemy combatant for tens of miles, and one with low concentrations of trip wire, or stay behind defenses. Yes, no more than say 1/6 of the frontage is covered to a depth of maybe a few miles per brigade. A RL brigade defense could be in box/hedgehog type things, widely spaced (which the zoc rules you propose would force), or my tripwire/delay set up. In Russia frontages got very extreme... Forcing the Attacking division to stop and deploy a company for a formal attack (however hasty) would be a major success for each trip wire position.

One alternative solution would be that brigades with empty hexes next to them defend more weakly if attacked (showing they re dispersed to generate the ZOC). Another would be a toggle, where you can have a ZOC (but with that penalty) or no ZOC and no penalty - although that is very complex and micromanagement.

Again we need to see WITE2 in its advanced form before we decide how much of an issue ZOCs are. I find 30 mile deep lines everywhere (3 continuous lines) rather than stronger front lines (stacked 2 or 3 deep) far more of an issue in terms of relationship to RL in WITE...and that is the IGOUGO system driving that

I think proper ZOC movement costs could be based on advance rates as described here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/v2n4.pdf (page 13).

It's worth noting the base speed (without impact of posture, terrain, roads, rivers, minefields, weather, surprise, fatigue etc) depends on the equivalent of a CV ratio... We can of course assume that bigger units have greater CV than smaller units, but this is not always the case (see my previous post). But it's a starting point. Granting units of all sizes and any quality the same movement-reducing capabilities is just plain wrong. It all depends on actual relationships between the advancing and the opposing forces.

And if you'll look into those tables there is no separate row for "absolutely no resistance" (weakest possible is "negligible resitance"), as (obviously) any movement into enemy territory using tactical movement (to borrow a term from V for Victory) is bound to be slowed down because of friction.

Now let's look an impact of a brigade defending 30 miles of terrain (hex + 2 in ZOC) vs advancing panzer division. With less than 1 men per meter of frontline, the brigade would never be able to achieve "prepared/fortified defense" and only "hasty defense/delay" would be possible (this may not be present in the article, but it's in the literature ("Numbers, Predictions and War"). As we know from WitE a brigade would have 1 CV or less, compared to 15 CV or more of a panzer division, so that would result in a ratio greater than 6.0. It turns out the brigade has no impact on the speed of advance... maximum advance of 60km/day is still possible, but of course less will be achieved due to terrain and roads. And for those protesting that a brigade surely has bigger impact than a void in its place on the speed of advance, then yes, it will have an indirect impact for the following days, since a combat will occur, losses will be taken, and fatigue gained. But at the core there is not much a weak brigade on too long front can do against a strong armored force coming its way.

ORIGINAL: morvael

...

Now let's look an impact of a brigade defending 30 miles of terrain (hex + 2 in ZOC) vs advancing panzer division. With less than 1 men per meter of frontline, the brigade would never be able to achieve "prepared/fortified defense" and only "hasty defense/delay" would be possible (this may not be present in the article, but it's in the literature ("Numbers, Predictions and War"). As we know from WitE a brigade would have 1 CV or less, compared to 15 CV or more of a panzer division, so that would result in a ratio greater than 6.0. It turns out the brigade has no impact on the speed of advance... maximum advance of 60km/day is still possible, but of course less will be achieved due to terrain and roads. And for those protesting that a brigade surely has bigger impact than a void in its place on the speed of advance, then yes, it will have an indirect impact for the following days, since a combat will occur, losses will be taken, and fatigue gained. But at the core there is not much a weak brigade on too long front can do against a strong armored force coming its way.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a brigade strung out over a long front can do anything meaningful to hold a Pzr division.

The debate (to me at least) is if the zoc cost is a realistic if imperfect rendering of the defenders ability to react (something lacking in igougo engines).

Lets assume you are part of an airborne corps and you've been told to delay/detect any German advance. No doubt your orders are expressed with usual Stalinist subtlety and concern for your well being. In your favour, if it really is an airborne brigade, you have a unit trained in small level actions and for sabotage. So I'd spread out a picket line, make sure the obvious roads were well boobytrapped etc. Once you'd detected where the enemy was moving through, I'd let the tanks go and look for ambushes on the HQ elements and other support units. So the zoc cost is a sort of imperfect way to reflect that the defending side is not just going to sit static - you could see the counter as a sort of indication of centre of gravity for the unit but with some tactical capacity to shift as the situation develops. You're not going to stop the enemy, but if you do it right you could well annoy and frustrate them?

But there is a practical aspect around the game. If we strip out the friction/response aspect - which is what the zoc is reflecting - is this better or worse for the game? Is there another mechanism that exists to capture this? And then should the zoc be situational or arbitrary. I can see arguments for both, but it is important that the AI can understand and use any rules of this ilk.

At the moment it has a simple binary rule - a unit interdicts movement past it.

ORIGINAL: loki100

As to the zoc issue, the other way to frame it is that over a certain size of defenders should project a hard zoc (ie you can't move through). It would model one of the Soviet foul ups during Mars when they lost a cavalry corps trying to slip it into the gap between German positions. Of course, it too would change some fundamental interactions embedded into the game balance.

At the map scale of the game, a hard ZOC makes no sense. In your example, I doubt the German units just sat there and magically made it impossible for the Cav Corps to move. Instead it was unable to hold it's ground, but caused losses and used up time. I think that's adequately covered by the current mechanics.

The main issue with any ZOC mechanism is that it allows one to control space without exacting a price. Hence in the game at one end of the spectrum you see ant carpets, at the other, extreme stronpoints with gaps in between.

There is an inverse ratio between coverage and combat power. You maximise your coverage but sacrifice combat power, or vice versa. It's a juggling act to get right.

The above assuming you don't go overboard with forcexspace ratio.

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think proper ZOC movement costs could be based on advance rates as described here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/v2n4.pdf (page 13).

Morveal,

Im aware of ur keen interrest in the Dupuy Methodology. So we are proberbly not gona be in agreement on this, but i can only give warning on taking the dupuy methodes and unquestionble using them.

An example is during WiTW testing some testers wanted/suggested the combat results based on testing the methodes vs the game engine. Im not a particular fan of the combat engine, but if one was to take the results from the dupuy methode and extrapolated them in normnady the Allied should have taken 6 to 1 inf in casulties and 8 to 1 in armored casulties. This included max Allied airfactors and more.
Clearly thats pretty far from historic levels. If implimented the Allies would have been attrited at a degree that question if they would ever have been able to break out.

When one looks at the methode to me some issues stands out as striking and problematic. For example is repair rates assumed to be a standart factor of 50% for both sides. That isnt really in line with the historic realities.

When u look at artillery factors nor is there any /large enough factors taking into account that things arent equal. At for example Goodwood the Allies and this isnt necesarrily uncommon differences used 78000 artilery shells. In the defence the germans used 4000.
There is no doubt that the germans had the favor of being entrenched, camoflaged and so on that lowers the effectiveness of artillery. Vs Allies that have to attack in fairly open terrain. I think its fair to assume that "granade for grenade" the german side would do more damage per grenade, but the disparity in number of shells send down range is just so large that the Allied grenade only has to be about 5% as effetive as a german one. For artillery to cause similar casulty numbers.

This to me is just some of the area's that made the results of the test dupuy battles vs real life results so different. There IMO are to many assumptions and standarditaions that isnt necesarrily correct, which leaves me weary of the dupuy methodology.


As it is now(WiTE1) the movement rates are way overstated if u take any thing but the first few weeks. Those MP are non the less attainble through out the game. Having the ability even with those 2 3 Deep lines with enough skill in a time line far beyound the initial battles to have duel pincer pockets of in exces 500 Kms. Having no such historic examples non the less being quite possible. Im aware of many changes in WiTE2 vs WiTE1. Non the less i think the overall movement and results is more importand than if subject A or B as with zoc costs are.

One thing might be a "common sense" but im sure sure that Dupuy Methodology cant recreate a single KV2 stopping parts of a pz div for 3 days/half a turn. That didnt happen often nor should it(if ever), but some times friction is just created that defies common sense. Nor are all teh 100.000s stranglers shown in game/on map, not am i saying they should be be. They might not have much combat value non the less that doesnt stop a pz div for bumping in to such elements creating friction/delays here and there.

Thats the problem i have with using such methodology. When comparing to real life u many times end up at ends. A perfect example is when for example in WiTE1 in 95% of the AAR games when do the german inf divs reach upper Dnieper and start of the Smolensk operations and comparing to when this happens in game 95% of the time. I'd rather look at movement rates based on real life accomplisments with room for a certain leverage than methodology that doesnt seem to be able to take into account the complex frictions of large operational warfare.


Its not that im necesarrily against changing ZoC movements, i just find it much more interresting in what becomes the in game results of changes and the many other changes in WiTE2 and how do they interact.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

I have followed the discussion a bit and i agree with Micheal T. The question is not whether a small brigade has a ZOC and is able to delay an advance in a certain way. But it will never ever reach the influence three stacked rifle corps or big armoured formations can have. So i fully agree that there must be a difference. I vote for a calculation based on offensive CV, maybe in combination with MPs? here. On this way, all the factors like mobility, experience&morale and supply are included because they influence CV.

@Walloc: Is there a source for the calculation? I would be very interested how they did the calculations.

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Kind regards,
Rasmus

I'm not saying QJM is an ideal solution, especially that an improved version was never shared publicly in full detail. But I think it's a good starting point for making estimates. I think that this metodology sort of works, because it was quite good at predicting losses in the Gulf War and in Bosnia. I would take that level of accuracy as a starting point any time. IMHO, if you have seen such mismatched predictions vs real losses, as you mention for D-Day, then I'd say that you ommited some important factors (or the system doesn't actually handle that - they freely admit for example that they have not measured the effect of interdiction enough, to make it part of the formulas, as well as the fact that there is QJM/TNDM for air war). You know I think Dupuy's methodology is good, but I also have one more favourite that I would love to marry with QJM/TNDM, as it seems it's good at explaining situations where inventory-based systems miss the effect of force employment.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: MechFO

A foot mobile brigades/regiments sphere of influence is maybe 7-8 km across at maximum, at least if it wants to maintain ANY defensive capability (which unit commanders normally want to do).

It has neither the mobility nor the means to reach out any further. Neither does it have the ability to push much more than a company or 2 forward into the surrounding 600km2 (or 300km2 if taking into account only most likely axis of advance), and if they are pushed forward vs. an enemy with superior mobility they are at risk if being lost or bypassed. Those companies spheres are maybe 1km2, max.

In combat order that brigade/regiment will advance maybe 2-3 km/hour (being generous), ample time for any reaction, especially by a mechanized force, and very vulnerable to counter attack or artillery.

Them being able to influence movement so far away does not make sense.

The unit setup that michael shows above does not make sense in any kind of real world situation, yet makes perfect sense in WITE, which should indicate that something fundamental is wrong with the ZOC mechanic.

ZOC mobility costs can f.e. be because of:

- use of alternative roads
- necessity of screening + having reserves or extra tasking of reserve function to transiting units
- increased readiness or combat order instead of march order
etc.

However all of the above will be made due to threat assessment, and a foot mobile company stranded somewhere is not going to send anybody into big bursts of activity.

I broadly agree with your RL points. However, how in the game do you model a defense that is purely to delay and inhibit? In game, the weakest line that could be set up (under the no brigade ZOC system) would be continuous brigade lines, that is about 50% of the front covered by proper defensive positions (from your numbers). What if I want platoons or smaller, scattered around not mutually supporting, whose job it is to snipe one or two men, or hit a vehicle with the sole aim of causing 30 mins delay, or an hour, over and over again? In your analysis there is no difference between advancing into terrain where there is not a single enemy combatant for tens of miles, and one with low concentrations of trip wire, or stay behind defenses.

Delay mechanism would be best represented by retreat losses being scaled by relative mobility, modified by Xp. A successful Delay, which means low losses for a maximum of enemy losses and time spent is very hard to pull off. And there are always losses in a delay because if you are shooting at him he's shooting at you.


Regarding the bolded bit, you don't, because it's a very bad idea. Remember we are talking foot mobile units here, and also it is WWII, so limited radio.

That stuff is hard to pull off unless you have a significant mobility/recon and C3 advantage.

If you want to bring down effective fire you are well into his engagement envelope as well. So you have to break contact. Great, you've surveyed a retreat routes and actually found one that provides cover vs the EXPECTED axis of advance. Except, you don't know if it's still that way when you actually try to retreat. If (big IF) you successfully break contact, who says the unit you engaged is actually the most forward element? So you need very good intel on what's happening in your battlespace. Then, it's inevitable that many of your units are liable to be outflanked, because you want max coverage, so you spread them out. This means you have to have the units fall back in time, which again predicates you and they know where everyone is, at all times. I can't stress enough how hard this is to do properly, even today, unless you hold the above mentioned

Also, how many platoons are you willing to throw away like that? A battalion has only 9-12 platoons, and each platoon can only cover a very very small area.

That stuff did happen, but this was unplanned, small roving bands trying to break out of encirclement, stragglers etc. But while they caused losses, they didn't stop or significantly delay anything.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Yes, no more than say 1/6 of the frontage is covered to a depth of maybe a few miles per brigade. A RL brigade defense could be in box/hedgehog type things, widely spaced (which the zoc rules you propose would force), or my tripwire/delay set up. In Russia frontages got very extreme... Forcing the Attacking division to stop and deploy a company for a formal attack (however hasty) would be a major success for each trip wire position.

As mentioned, I don't have a problem with allowing brigades to breakdown. This would solve your issue.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I have followed the discussion a bit and i agree with Micheal T. The question is not whether a small brigade has a ZOC and is able to delay an advance in a certain way. But it will never ever reach the influence three stacked rifle corps or big armoured formations can have. So i fully agree that there must be a difference. I vote for a calculation based on offensive CV, maybe in combination with MPs? here. On this way, all the factors like mobility, experience&morale and supply are included because they influence CV.

Just to point out the pitfalls in such. The rules also have to work down the line. Mid game if based purely on CV could have a german bde with for example a tiger btn attached having the same CV as 2 3 rumenian divs. That bde would have little artillery, the mobility of tigers isnt necesarrily the best. So u get an example of very few combat troops 2 3 btns of inf with little art and tanks strung out over 48 km(1 hex each to side) of front with all things given limited. Having the same "interdiction" as units much larger with many more men to cover the actual hexes and much more art. Art as such have little to no CV value at leased in WiTE1. Considering that by nature of the rules the russian is alrdy limited in mobility and the rules have to work in 43 and 44 too. How is this different than the issue of "ants"

@Walloc: Is there a source for the calculation? I would be very interested how they did the calculations.

Ill PM u. As it wasnt in public forums. Nor do i want to have peoples work given out with out their consent and knowledge. So ill ask around.

Kind regards,
Rasmus