Matrix Games Forums

So I'm refurbishing an old WW2 eastern front scenario.

One aspect it depicts is certain flavors of rear area operations. In context, this is part of a scenario that shows the entire front and is mostly division-level units.

All of the old issues are here, re: rear-area. Partisans can cut rail lines, SS special ops units can do the same, and I assume, blow bridges.

Obviously, this can seriously impact unit supply. At this time, the scenario needs more rail repair troops and security forces to address this activity. This can be added to the scenario easily enough, but what I wonder is, "is it worth it?"

What the Partisans etc. provide is mostly historical color. Neither they nor the SS special ops units were critical in any battles I'm aware of for the period of time this scenario covers. On the other hand, I'm trying to keep the scenario pretty much as it was when first released.

I'll probably just add the rail security/repair units to keep the flavor intact. But in general, the rear-area activities seem like a distraction in many TOAW scenarios.

Cheers

Wholeheartedly agree. Partisans are "cool" and designers love to throw them into the scenario, but in reality it's not appropriate for a number of reasons;
1) the size of individual units is generally a lot lower than the unit scale in the scenario (divisions in your case), and the same will normally be true of the individual security detachments
2) If you do put the unit in the scenario, even one squad will be able to do all the things a big unit can do: convert hexes, break rail lines and exert a ZOC
3) the ability of the regular forces to influence the behaviour of these units is decidedly limited. You might want the partisans to cut the rail line at the cost of their lives, but they just won't do it
4) the way TOAW handles guerrilla icon units is problematic in a number of ways, as they're often visible only if the player mouses over the hex, which means the correct action for the player is to spend a couple of hours scrolling over ever single hex in their rear area to detect these units- not fun for anyone. They also don't suffer losses from desertion when cut off, and don't tend to suffer from RBCs either, so you need to fully surround them with six units and actually attack to do any damage at all. If you picture five partisans holed up in a shack surrounded by six battalions of security troops, this starts to feel wrong.
5) from experience, it simply is not fun for either player

Certainly in some special cases, particularly at smaller scales, partisan units can be appropriate- and there have been some admirable efforts at scenarios focusing on guerrilla warfare. But a divisional-scale scenario should primarily handle partisans using the event engine.

... in terms of editing a specific scenario, if the partisans are on the map and the various Line of Communications and other security troops are not then that needs to be fixed, and the simplest way to do that is to delete the partisans.

After 1941 it was hardly six Soviet guys in a shack. In many parts of the German controlled Soviet Union it was more like five Germans holed up in a shack by the rail line hoping it didn't get blown up. By the end of 1943 60% of Belarus was controlled by partisans. By the time the Soviets finally got there most of Belarus was partisan controlled and under the supervision of a partisan government. There were about 50k partisans in organized units by the end of 1942. Ukraine was a mess and I have no idea how you would portray that since it was partisans vs partisans vs Germans vs partisans vs Soviets. The Baltics were hit and miss. But in Russia proper and Belarus I would not so casually dismiss partisan activity after 1941.

Mostly it depends on what you want out of a scenario and what you can dig up out of different sources.

Edit: And how much of a pain in the butt you want it to be for the people playing the scenario. [:D]

... in terms of editing a specific scenario, if the partisans are on the map and the various Line of Communications and other security troops are not then that needs to be fixed, and the simplest way to do that is to delete the partisans.

None of them in this scenario use the "G" icon. For this round I'll keep them (with added security resources, I read a small bit about things like German and Soviet railroad security ops).

The SS commandos are something else. One operation actually occurred within the time domain of the scenario, but it was more a long range reconnaissance operation. That may be better served with theater option events. But again, for the initial release I'll probably just keep it as is.

I would like to make some major changes to the scenario, but would prefer to contact the scenario designer for his okay. I worked with him before and have respect for his design choices. The order of battle could stand updating as better information is available today than was the case way back when.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: Lobster

By the end of 1943 60% of Belarus was controlled by partisans.

Sounds like an excellent use for the guerrilla effect in the event engine. You can actually set this factor all the way to 100%, then any hex you're not physically sitting on (except for urban and airfield hexes) is controlled by the enemy. This works quite neatly, as you're essentially forced to deploy a continuous chain of units along the rail line. Of course it creates problems if half the map is supposed to be populated with your own people.

What was the largest single organised body of partisans? 100 men? 1,000? If it wasn't a partisan unit, would you put it on the map at division scale- or merge it into some other unit, as you would with an AA battalion, or some independent tank company? Again- there are some specific circumstances where on-map guerrilla icon units are appropriate, but a lot of designers will throw in highly marginal or outright fictional guerrilla units as soon as an invading army puts its toe onto enemy territory.

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

None of them in this scenario use the "G" icon.

That makes them markedly easier to deal with. I'd still ask, would these guys actually do what the commissar told them to do, or just piddle about settling scores and extorting food from peasants?

I would like to make some major changes to the scenario, but would prefer to contact the scenario designer for his okay.

That's always a good choice.

I'd still ask, would these guys actually do what the commissar told them to do, or just piddle about settling scores and extorting food from peasants?

It gets better because various factions are involved. One group made a nice long march after the Germans retreated, penetrated the German lines to get to the German rear, and eventually contacted the U.S. Army in another country. Weird, colorful stuff, but peripheral for TOAW scenarios.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

It gets better because various factions are involved. One group made a nice long march after the Germans retreated, penetrated the German lines to get to the German rear, and eventually contacted the U.S. Army in another country. Weird, colorful stuff, but peripheral for TOAW scenarios.

Reminds me. There was some US Army unit on D-Day took the surrender of a German position- but they weren't Germans. Eventually it turns out they were Koreans, who had been conscripted by the Japanese, surrendered to the Soviets in Mongolia, conscripted by the Russians and surrendered to the Germans, the conscripted by them... fortunately the US Army had no need for them or they could have made their way home in 1950.

Really goes to show how desperate for manpower the Germans were by 1944. "OK- you're not actually an enemy national. Here's a rifle...."

The problem with partisans in EF scenarios is that it is trying to recreate exactly the same conditions as it historically happened.
The problem is you are missing the most obvious and prominent force: politics. Players can do whatever they want. No one will execute them for being "a coward", "defeatist" or simply demote them for "incompetence".
No one forbids player to withdraw or no one orders them to attack instead of setting up defences.
And everyone just assumes that each time the same chain if events would be valid.
Few remember that already in June 1942 there was a very close call when polish partisans tried assassinate Hitler when he was traveling on train (near Starogard).
Or that the initial reception of German soldiers in Belarus and Ukraine was very friendly. Until Einsatztruppen were send in.

Since the players are free from political side of war I wouldn't also bother much with partisans or any other "historical" artificiality. Too many factors that simply are not possible to be programmed.

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Since the players are free from political side of war I wouldn't also bother much with partisans or any other "historical" artificiality. Too many factors that simply are not possible to be programmed.

This is probably the best. Leave out the partisans and any anti partisan units that didn't participate in combat vs 'regular' army. The percentage option doesn't work very well because it's applied to the entire map. What a pain in the butt that would be for the Germans in FitE2. And if you use units the German player just peeks to see where and when they appear and surround that area. [;)]

I not only model the partisans, I try to model some of the rear-area elements of the divisions. Remember that most divisions had over 10k men, but actual front-line combat elements were only in the 3000-4000 level. I don't see how all that other manpower can be ignored - especially if there are going to be exploitation of breakthroughs.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I not only model the partisans, I try to model some of the rear-area elements of the divisions. Remember that most divisions had over 10k men, but actual front-line combat elements were only in the 3000-4000 level. I don't see how all that other manpower can be ignored - especially if there are going to be exploitation of breakthroughs.

It really depends on the scale. One can model rear area personnel by putting them in HQs and other units which the player will not want in the front line, but you don't want rear area personnel in the line combat units- otherwise the cooks and clerks will be going over the top along with the riflemen.

In fact I would suggest that in a lot of cases, the correct place for these rear area staff is in the replacement pool. They're only going to come into play if the riflemen have been killed off and there's no-one left to cook and clerk for.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

They're only going to come into play if the riflemen have been killed off and there's no-one left to cook and clerk for.

Unless the lines become ruptured and enemy units are ranging around in the rear. That's when they matter. And divisions don't have 10,000 cooks and clerks. Most of the excess is logistical in function.

In virtually every army everyone is trained as a rifleman. That's what you are. Even if you go to an army officer school you are trained as a rifleman. Even if you are trained in some other skill you are first and foremost a rifleman. Cook, clerk, mechanic, radar operator, laundry, doesn't matter. At Bastogne everyone was a rifleman. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In virtually every army everyone is trained as a rifleman. That's what you are. Even if you go to an army officer school you are trained as a rifleman. Even if you are trained in some other skill you are first and foremost a rifleman. Cook, clerk, mechanic, radar operator, laundry, doesn't matter. At Bastogne everyone was a rifleman. [;)]

Right- but it's a super bad idea to send a guy who has spent two years developing expertise as a signaller off to the front. He will be quite a bad rifleman- and it'll be hell replacing him as a signaller.

You sort of make my point for me here. Bastogne- OK. So in one place, for perhaps a week, the rear elements of a small number of US units fought in the frontline.

The rest of the time, they didn't.

OMG...I didn't say anyone would send someone to the trenches no matter the situation or MOS. [:D]

I simply said everyone is trained to be a rifleman. If your unit is cut off you don't have much use for a typist. So everyone in the cut off unit is a rifleman. If you don't have everyone in the unit that was actually there then you deny that unit the people who would, not could, take part in the fighting. Bastogne. Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Falaise, Korea and a thousand other times.

If you don't want them there then don't include them in your scenario. Problem solved. BTW, that's how Tiller's guys do it. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

OMG...I didn't say anyone would send someone to the trenches no matter the situation or MOS. [:D]

I simply said everyone is trained to be a rifleman. If your unit is cut off you don't have much use for a typist. So everyone in the cut off unit is a rifleman. If you don't have everyone in the unit that was actually there then you deny that unit the people who would, not could, take part in the fighting. Bastogne. Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Falaise, Korea and a thousand other times.

Well there's a few more points here.

1) Depending on where you get cut off, rear elements of the division might well be on the other side of the pocket
2) "Would, not could" is optimistic. I'd say that when the bad guys turn up, the typist is less likely to decide he's a rifleman and more likely to decide he's a prisoner of war. Again this depends on the circumstances; in particular, were there a couple of days to organise folks like the battalion major's batman into a scratch rifle section, or was he ironing the major's underwear outside the billet when a Pz-IV rolled past?
3) Crises pass- and your unit is going to need some serious R&R if everyone who knows how to fry spam just so became a casualty two weeks ago. They'll need to be replaced for the unit to reach its previous standard. Simply because all the rifle companies are back up to strength doesn't mean the division is ready to go

One thing you could look at is to beef up the "Support Squad" quite a bit. So the HQ can go on the line- but if it gets badly handled it's going to have a seriously detrimental impact on its ability to carry on being an HQ afterwards.

Like I said, Tiller does the bayonets only method. No cooks. If someone wants to take another course that's fine with me. I have no problem with it. Either way is only somewhat accurate. [;)]

Oh, just had a thought. When the beans, bullets and pol supply stuff hits (been talked about for some time now) it's going to be very important to get things right in this regard as far as which way you are going. I'm kind of concerned it's going to turn into an SPI North Africa thing. To get the beans bullets pol forward you'll need rear area troops. I'm hoping we will be able to use it or not use it.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Oh, just had a thought. When the beans, bullets and pol supply stuff hits (been talked about for some time now)

Hm? Is there some big supply review in the cards? From what Bob's been saying I didn't think it was a priority.

What matters is that a) each unit consumes a certain quantity of supplies and b) a given supply route can only carry a certain amount of supply. I think any system in TOAW would have to be very light touch for the player because, ultimately, it's not The Operational Art of Logistics, and having to move a supply counter in range every time you want to move a mech unit is going to make people switch off.

I wrote out a long description of how I thought such a system would work, ages ago, and lost it.

Yeah he has mentioned it a time or two.

Not looked lately but in FitE2 the HQ units were stronger than combat units because of the huge number of support squads. So corps HQ could be thrown into the front line no problem. [:D]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
"Would, not could" is optimistic. I'd say that when the bad guys turn up, the typist is less likely to decide he's a rifleman and more likely to decide he's a prisoner of war.

Just now realized. You have called everyone not in a front line combat unit a coward. [:D]