Probability of failing initiative check Corps vs. Army

[rmonical]

See the Reserve activation over the top thread for some color on this analysis. I ran some numbers based on the text in the 7.03 manual. The table calculates the probability of failing all four checks (or three checks in the case of Army as first level of command). There is a little uncertainty about the range checks if the Army is the first level of command-I used the worst case. Bottom line is the unit reporting directly to the army has a greater chance of passing the initiative check than the unit reporting to a corps - all else being equal. For this I assumed that the initiative ratings and ranges are as shown in each table. For the table on the right,

If the army commander has an initiative level 1 higher than the corps commander, the the Army as first level command has a higher probability of passing the check.

I wanted to see the sensitivity of the initiative check on the initiative of the high commander (Halder is 6).

[rmonical]

I improved the spreadsheet to make the base explicit. I concluded that they would have to lower the base for corps from 10 to 8 to restore the usefulness of the corps in the leader check chain.

[rmonical]

If your corps commander has a rating of 5, then even with a base of 8, you are better off without the corps in the leader check chain. At the current base of 10, the corps at level 5 increases the chance of all checks failing by 50% (from 16% to 25%) verses reporting directly to the the army.

[Michael T]

It is even better for the Army HQ if you get 8 Int guys in there.

But the Int roll is only half the story. The MP roll counts as well (as well hex range to target). But as it turns out the RAW are incorrect and there is no difference in MP penalties between Corp reporting to the same Army.

To be honest all that is needed is to knock down the Soviet leader ratings by a few points in 1941.

[rmonical]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It is even better for the Army HQ if you get 8 Int guys in there.

But the Int roll is only half the story. The MP roll counts as well (as well hex range to target). But as it turns out the RAW are incorrect and there is no difference in MP penalties between Corp reporting to the same Army.

To be honest all that is needed is to knock down the Soviet leader ratings by a few points in 1941.

Reserve activation is only part of the story. The bigger story is that for a whole range of morale, initiative and combat checks - the corps HQ hurts rather than helps unless the corps commander has the same rating as the army commander. If the corps commander rating is two below the army commander - it is horrible.


This, of course assumes the one incomplete example in the rules is correct.

[Flaviusx]

Rmonical, try it and see what happens. I don't think we can get a definitive answer here until somebody does this. I'm genuinely curious myself at this point. Nice spreadsheet work, though.

[rmonical]

I am. Another advantage to not using corps when the army is on a small front is you do not have to pay the absurd AP cost to move divisions around in an army. In this example, since I cannot disband LI corps due to withdrawing, I want to re-assign the division to the army. You will see that there is no AP cost benefit to re-assigning the division inside verses outside its current army.

[Michael T]

That is a very good point. I find I spend lots of AP constantly switching XX between Corp to avoid the CV penalties. Army C&C avoids this problem to a large extent. I don't think a penalty between Corp reporting to the same Army is really warranted.

[Seminole]

Army C&C avoids this problem to a large extent. I don't think a penalty between Corp reporting to the same Army is really warranted.

Are these penalties the same between German and Soviet?
e.g. Does a German units, reporting to different Army HQ, under different Army Group HQ, suffer the same CV penalty as a Russian unit fighting under separate Fronts?

[rmonical]

Are these penalties the same between German and Soviet?

The CV penalties are the same for combat. However, the Soviets pay much lower AP costs to reassign units between HQs. I do not understand this difference because it is the Germans who have the more sophisticated staff organization. The cost for Axis allies is even higher.

[Flaviusx]

Axis divisions are not commensurate with Soviet ones, hence the higher transfer cost. Save for a very brief period of time in 1941, Soviet divisions are roughly 2/3 as large and get a discount. (Some of their divisions are even smaller than that, like the cavalry divisions, which is a division by courtesy only. Most of us westerners would call it a brigade.) Soviets are not exactly swimming in APs generally anyways, they are far more constrained by APs as a practical matter due to many more demands on their AP budget.

Once the Soviets transition over to combat corps, they have it worse than the Axis does. Their transfer costs are steep.

[Michael T]

It seems strange though that in the chaos of 1941 that the Soviets can throw a dozen XX in to an attack and if under the one Army suffer no CV penalty. Yet if the supposedly superior German C&C does the same they cannot avoid a penalty. It does not make sense. I would like to see no CV Penalty for German ONLY attacks that fall under one Army Command, even if several Corp are involved. It would seem from Pavel's remarks this is the case with Reserve Activations so why not for the attack itself.

You know it makes sense [:D] , just ask Sam.

[Flaviusx]

The penalty ought to arise directly from the state of the leadership in this case, Michael. To some extent it does. Soviets fail leadership checks of all kinds with great frequency. Still, I am not satisfied with the game presentation of Soviet leadership. Too high initially, too static, and in some cases too low down the line.

[rmonical]

Axis divisions are not commensurate with Soviet ones, hence the higher transfer cost.

Agree.
I think the Soviet transfer cost caps out at 3? German ranges from 2-9 for divisions and division breakdowns. Soviet Corps run up to twice a large as German divisions and the cost seems to be 13-15 APs.

Of course, the Soviets get bucket loads of brigades that move around for 1.

Soviet corps breakdown divisions and German breakdown regiments both pay the respective corps/division AP cost to change HQ.

I would still give advantage Soviets here. If the Germans could create support units and combat units from APs, they would have major AP problems as well.

[Flaviusx]

Is creating extra support units something Axis players want to do? I don't think their replacement situation supports that. Most folks prefer to dial down those TOE as is. They eventually become disband bait.

It's true that the increase in costs between Soviet and Axis divisions are not linear. I'm not sure why that's the case. Possibly GG felt the Axis needed an AP sink here.

[Helpless]

There is a little uncertainty about the range checks if the Army is the first level of command-I used the worst case.

Range check is done on all levels. As I can see range modifiers in your tables are incorrect.

Ex.
Corps range 5 rg mod = abs(5-5)/1 = 0
Army range 10. rg mod = abs(10-5)/2 = 2
AG range 15. rg mod = abs(15-5)/3 = 3
HC range 30. rg mod = abs(30-5)/4 = 6
etc..

Bottom line is the unit reporting directly to the army has a greater chance of passing the initiative check than the unit reporting to a corps - all else being equal.

Yes, having very high rating commander very close to all of your units makes upper levels obsolete. This is obvious and doesn't require any math.

[rmonical]

Yes, having very high rating commander very close to all of your units makes upper levels obsolete. This is obvious and doesn't require any math

This issue is that a lower rated corps commander reduces the effectiveness of the army commander. The division is better off without the intermediate corps HQ. The real world does not work that way.

[Helpless]

This issue is that a lower rated corps commander reduces the effectiveness of the army commander. The division is better off without the intermediate corps HQ.

Very much depends on situation. There are many cases when it is don't. All the tests we did in the past prove the same.

[rmonical]

With the corrected range calculation. Does not really change anything.

The example in the doc needs to be corrected.

[Helpless]

Does not really change anything.

No. It is still some particular case which shows that 7 is higher than 6.