Matrix Games Forums

Does that increase the number of units a leader can boost effectiveness?

I see a thread: leaders range 8. Their is no "organization" unit attribute. I'm stumped.

I think it boost the overall efficiency of the country's units and that's it. I dont know if it has something to do with leaders.

I think your right. Organization research affects maximum effieciency. Looked at a hotseat 41 game. Organization: Germany 3, USA, UK 2 and USSR 0. Unit effectiveness correlates with organization level.

Yes, and that is a very nice touch we are proud of in the game. It allows us to fine tune the game to say make one Country to be just slightly better than others in certain times in the war and of course the tech means also that this role is not locked and that you eventually in late war will see Allies and USSR catching up with Germany.

Germany had better doctrine, tactics and NCO's, so they deserve better effectiveness.

Congrats good game. Wow there's a lot of room for manuevre in the east.

Germany had exactly the same doctrine as France in 1940!![:D][:D]

There were huge differences in command and control.  The French Army had commanders hundreds of miles behind the lines, often with little or no communications.  They were a mess.

I disagree [:D] [:D]

The new Third Generation tactics developed by the Germans in World War I were the first non-linear tactics. On the defense, the objective became sucking the enemy in, then cutting him off, rather than holding a line. On the offensive, the attack flowed like water through the enemy’s defenses, always seeking the weakest point to penetrate, then rolling him up from his own rear forward. Operationally as well as tactically the goal was usually encirclement. Speed replaced firepower as the most important tool, and dislocation, mental as well as physical, was more important than attrition. Culturally, not only was the German Army outward-focused, it prized initiative over obedience and it depended on self-discipline rather than imposed discipline.


http://www.defense-and-society.org/lind ... _10_04.htm

The sixth book in the canon is Martin van Creveld’s Fighting Power, the second-best book by this brilliant Israeli military historian. While The Breaking Point contrasts the Second and Third Generations in combat, Fighting Power compares them as institutions. It does so by contrasting the U.S. Army in World War II with the German Wehrmacht. What emerges is a picture of two radically different institutions, each consistent with its doctrine. This book is important because it illustrates why you cannot do what the U.S. military is now attempting, namely combine Third Generation, maneuver warfare doctrine with a Second Generation, inward-focused, process-ridden, centralized institution. If you are a Marine, the next time the MAGTF Staff Training Program (MSTP) visits your unit, you might want to throw a copy of Fighting Power at them – hard.

http://www.defense-and-society.org/lind ... _25_04.htm

Oh you have points that are valid, but the key was the was the fact that the French Army had serious problems, including morale - the whole country was rather divided in its loyalties - as well as moribund leadership and badly implemented command and control, regardless of what their doctrine was like.  The generals gave orders that were out of date.  The supreme commander was in a chateux miles behind the lines without even a telephone.  There are a lot of reasons why they should have a lower effectiveness than the Germans.  Are you trying to say you felt they are both about the same in quality?

Does the german advantage in org research and being able to purchase superior geman leaders, both raising german effectiveness, simulate the german quality advantage, even though the other unit attributes are the same?

Warefare is non linear, so you need a non linear computer to simulate it accurately. [:D][:D]

Your the scenario designer? What do you think?

Question: It appears when an air unit attacks a ground unit, the ground unit defends with ground defense?

The defending ground unit will use it s Air Combat value since it is combatting an air unit. Yes, Vypuero is the scenario designer and a excellent one I may say [:)]
Yes, the leaders and organisation simulate the German superiority in the early stages of the war.
 
Else, it woudl have been so tricky, imagine a unit with Ground attack 2, ground defence 3 if we want to make it 20% better for Germans we cant since these numbers are so small increasing for example the Ground attack from 2 to 3 is a 50% increase, so our system is more fine tuning and fair [8D]

Hey those "German" tactics in WW1 were developed by a Frenchman - Captain Andre Laffargue.  He published a pamphlet on the topic in 1915, but the French didn't make it doctrine and the Brits didn't even translate it.
 
Copies of his pamphlet was captured by the Germans who adopted it as doctrine, and the rest, as we know, is history....

I agree that organization in this game is a welcome step in the right direction .... [:)]

I would also like to look a wee bit beyond the whole big picture ... [:'(]
I have played a number of games that also allow for the difference in base units .. not just in an eff % but also in the actual strategic and tactical capabilities that are not handled just by a 10 factor unit with 61 % eff ...
The actual difference in my mind is that ....
Say ... A french garison unit does not have the tactical ability that a Ger Pzr has ...
In game terms this means that w 3 french garisons in the Mag .. If the French can hit a Ger Pzr w a few air units .. eff % loss .. then hit w 3 french Gar .. then say the French Armor .. bye bye Ger Pzr even if a 10 factor ..
And besides the fact is that the french garisons still retain any entrenchments they have at the start of the turn even though they have moved out to attack the Ger Pzr ... [:-]
IG

Follow the golden tank rule: Do unto other's(tanks) with air units as you would not have others do unto your tanks.

[;)] 2 air attacks, 3 infantry attacks and a tank attack should be able to kill a German tank corps?


Tanks are nasty so I focus on killing them asap.


My pet peeve is with the movement rates of motorized infantry and tank corps, compared to infantry corps and the no research spotting range of 4 for air units.

Can you expand on that, do you mean that air units should have higher spotting ranges? We are considering higher movement range, attack range and spotting range for air units for next patch so would like to hear about how it is currently percepted.

I would say the air unit movement and attack ranges for no research/max research are okay.

But tactically, you can put an air unit on the coast and get maximum sea spotting benefit. But for land spotting, for safety's sake you need to stay 3 or 4 hexs behind your front line. I'd say starting no research land spotting should be 7 plus or minus one.

Why is their a difference between sea spotting and land spotting? These are corps size units.

I think motorized infantry should move 6 and keep up with the panzer's.[;)]


One more thing, what if tanks corps have full movement exploitation if hasn't moved prior to attack. In theory a tank corps is supposed to attack, and break through and lead an armored spearhead thrust with motorized infantry following.

So some supporting air unit and infantry attacks, then a successfull non moving tank corps attack, that destroyed or retreated an enemy unit, could exploitation move 6 instead of one and lead the motorized infantry corps in an encirclement attempt in cooperation with another tank corps with follow on motorized infantry several hexs away.

Just trying to mimic german encirclement tactics.

Then Irish Guards would have a new reason to hate french tanks. [:D]

We need to be carefull with spotting ranges, with no weather to limit air in the game, having too much range will make it impossible to conceal stragetic reserves for surprise land offensives (ie. Ardennes etc), or allow ships to break out of port.

Yeah that is why we will be modest and careful. Perhaps only increasinf land spotting range of air by even 1 hex would make a significant difference. Concerning attack range and movement they are ok at no tech but with higher tech we fell they should give even more than they do know.

I was suggesting 8 spotting, but perhaps it should be 6 spotting as a compromise, with increases to say a maximum of 12 or so?