Matrix Games Forums

During 1941 very few Soviet Rifle Divisions were kept in just one Army. Typically they were transferred to at least one and in some cases up to five different Armys. The only way to accomplish that in the current version of TOAW is to set the Rifle Divisions to a Free Support level. I don't see anyone doing that. They are usually set to Internal or Army support levels. This makes shifting them from one Army to another a bad thing to do since it reduces their effectiveness when used in conjunction with other non cooperative units and denies them support from non cooperative artillery. This is completely contrary to what really happened. Exactly what is the logic for crippling the Soviet Rifle Divisions in a way that goes completely against facts?

ORIGINAL: Lobster
This is completely contrary to what really happened.

Yes and no. While the rifle divs might have been frequently transferred between armies, it would be difficult to argue that Russian armies played well together at this stage in the war, so to put all Soviet rifle divisions as "free cooperation" would also be very ahistorical, just in a different way.

There are many limitations in the game engine, the inability to transfer units is one of them.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Lobster
This is completely contrary to what really happened.

Yes and no. While the rifle divs might have been frequently transferred between armies, it would be difficult to argue that Russian armies played well together at this stage in the war, so to put all Soviet rifle divisions as "free cooperation" would also be very ahistorical, just in a different way.

There are many limitations in the game engine, the inability to transfer units is one of them.

Perhaps that could be better represented by a lower proficiency level rather than hamstringing the whole Soviet Army. There were some Rifle Divisions that had upwards of 65% veterans of the campaigns from the Winter War and since. So to paint the entire Army with one broad stroke doesn't seem accurate. Using proficiency units could then climb the proficiency ladder. Sticking the entire Army with lower cooperation levels is a one and done solution. No way to recover from it.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Perhaps that could be better represented by a lower proficiency level rather than hamstringing the whole Soviet Army.

Perhaps...but it seems that giving the whole Soviet Army the ability to freely coordinate among its various armies in 1941 would be giving it an ability that it simply didn't have.

There were some Rifle Divisions that had upwards of 65% veterans of the campaigns from the Winter War and since. So to paint the entire Army with one broad stroke doesn't seem accurate.

Certainly some Soviet units were pretty decent, even the crappy ones fought fanatically under the right circumstances. But I think that the issue with granting them "free support" is whether all of those units--army wide--should be able to join in coordinated attacks rather than how good each individual unit was. One of the Red Army's biggest problems in 1941 was their inability to coordinate operations between armies (and to a lesser extent, within armies).

Rather than replicating the effect of transferring units around, I believe that the main effect of giving all Soviet rifle divisions (all units?) Free Support would be to make the Red Army as a whole a much more coordinated and effective organization that it was in fact (certainly in 1941, less so later). This could be pretty potent once the Soviet units had built up some proficiency. Meanwhile, at least initially, individual Soviet units would be less effective than they should be because of their lowered initial proficiency.

Sticking the entire Army with lower cooperation levels is a one and done solution. No way to recover from it.

That's true, but it is one of many limitations imposed by the game engine.

I wouldn't say that your proposed approach is "wrong", it just fixes one problem and introduces another. Anyway, if this is the approach that you find appropriate, go for it, address it in the designer's notes, and be done with it.

One other approach to consider would be to dispense with armies altogether and put all divisions within fronts (ie, TOAW formations would be fronts rather than armies) and allow units to cooperate with all units within their front. I would argue that this is actually how Soviet fronts operated later in the war (late '42-early '43?); while it wouldn't be especially historical in 1941, it might be a compromise solution to consider.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
One other approach to consider would be to dispense with armies altogether and put all divisions within fronts (ie, TOAW formations would be fronts rather than armies) and allow units to cooperate with all units within their front. I would argue that this is actually how Soviet fronts operated later in the war (late '42-early '43?); while it wouldn't be especially historical in 1941, it might be a compromise solution to consider.

This is exactly how I model the problem for my War in Europe scenario.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
One other approach to consider would be to dispense with armies altogether and put all divisions within fronts (ie, TOAW formations would be fronts rather than armies) and allow units to cooperate with all units within their front. I would argue that this is actually how Soviet fronts operated later in the war (late '42-early '43?); while it wouldn't be especially historical in 1941, it might be a compromise solution to consider.

Again, you come up with the problem of units, whether Armys, Corps or Divisions, being stuck in one Front when in fact this wasn't true. The effect of having anything other than free support is a reduction in unit effectiveness when in a combat with a non cooperative formation. It's either a 13% or 33% reduction. That can be taken care of with reduced proficiency. And the more a unit is in combat the better 'trained' it is to take part in multi unit operations. For the Soviets it was OJT. If the unit survived. With a low proficiency that isn't going to be a common occurrence early on.

The other effect is how artillery supports a unit and how a HQ adds to a unit's supply. If Army level units are made to be Army support then that satisfies a situation where a division is in the wrong Army's area of operations. It won't get Army support. It can get Front or RVGK support because those should probably also be free support. But it won't benefit from an Army's support because it isn't in the area where there is an Army level unit to support it. This should also include Corps level artillery. The only artillery it will have for support is internal assets. And to make matters worse the Medium Artillery Regiments should not be reconstituted since they were removed in July. It might even be a good idea to make all the Medium Artillery Regiments part of the Army they started with. Rifle Divisions were missing so much of the technical staff to allow for effective indirect fire. They could be deployed with the division but be saddled with Army level cooperation. This could simulate the Soviets concentrating those technical assets at Army level which is basically what they did historically.

In fact, reducing proficiency is probably more severe than army or force support for the Rifle Divisions. With army or force support you do have limited cooperation. With reduced proficiency you don't even get that. BTW, divisions within a Mech Corp should probably be on internal support. They didn't even have the ability to cooperate with divisions within their own Corps. For some you could have individual regiments on internal support training was so lacking.

I think reduced proficiency will satisfy the inability to cooperate not only with divisions of other Armys but also with divisions within their own Army. As they are involved in more battles they will become more proficient which will serve to show a unit's ability to learn how to cooperate with other divisions in battle while still suffering from a lack of cooperation when in a different Army's area of operations. If they survive that long.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Again, you come up with the problem of units, whether Armys, Corps or Divisions, being stuck in one Front when in fact this wasn't true.

Being able to freely transfer units between armies/fronts and giving all Soviet units Free Support are two completely different things--the fact is that such units always remained under the command of one army/front or another; while transferring them allowed one army/front to be reinforced at the expense of another, it did nothing to make units in these armies/fronts cooperate better. In other words, Stavka could make one army/front stronger or weaker, but could not (succesfully) make armies/fronts cooperate "freely". In fact, the reason that units were often transferred is that because neighboring armies/fronts could not cooperate together.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
And the more a unit is in combat the better 'trained' it is to take part in multi unit operations. For the Soviets it was OJT...

[/quote]
It is hard to say much about your proposal without knowing more about your proposed scenario--is is 1941 only, or does it continue into '42-'43-'44?

But for cooperation between armies/fronts, it was not just OJT, it was Soviet command structures and doctrine that meant that one army often had no idea of the condition or mission of adjacent armies. This changed only gradually--after 1941--as weaker front commanders were gradually weeded out and Stavka accepted the need for better information sharing/coordination.

Can you show any historical instances (in 1941) of this OJT in cooperating with other armies/fronts to which you're referring? There doesn't seem to be much evidence of it during their counter-offensive at Moscow...