Questions about Panzer Corps

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 09, 2001 4:55 am

Searching a solution for my "damned tactic"

I found one thing that I believe is wrong about panzer corps. I am not sure at all so any comments are welcome

I explain :

The four panzer cops units available in the utility menu historically were not at the begining of the game.
- The 16th Pz Corps was formed in Berlin in 1937 to control the original panzer divisions. In 1939 was in Poland and in the West in 1940. In 1941 convert to 4th Pz Group

and upgraded in late 41 to panzer army status.
- The 19th Pz Corps was formed in May 1939 as XIX motorized. In 1940 was redesignated as Group Guderian or 19 Pz C. In 1941 redesignated 2nd Pz Group and upgraded to Pz Army status in December.
- 58th Pz Corps was formed in 1943 as Reserve Corps in France.
- The 76th Pz Corps was formed in the summer of 1943 in Italy remaining on italian front.

So if no wrongs the four Pz Corps are not available. The first two because seems are the same units and the others did not fight in the eastern front. I hope somebody can verify this.
This limitation can make the german think twice to send the corps behind enemy lines.

Another (and I think historically)limitation is delay the availability of the panzer corps once are destroyed at style of normal units. This is an idea of Lorenzo and We are doing in our 42 game (house rules you Know).

About the airlifts, why not cut down its efficiency taking as priority the supply level of the hex ?. For example at supply 6 100%, at 5 90%, at 4 80%, at 3 70%, at 2 60%, at 1 50%, at 0 40 of efficiency (or something similar). Always there are lost items in the drops or in case of low supply partisans or local garrisons.

AH!! One thing more!!!

The partisans are not strong enough I think. One easy possibility is garrisoning all cities with at less one division. One task for security divisions!!! In wir the partisans are not a serious problem for the germans.

Please, what do think about it )

Josan " the unrealistic gamer"

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Thu Aug 09, 2001 11:13 am

I can't comment on the Pz Korp because I don't have any source material to check.

For the reformation time I don't see why there should be a delay. The Korp is just an in game administrative feature in reality the german's could easily create "Kampfgruppe" and so on quickly to replace lost formations. So reforming a Korp should be no problem. But the loss of a real Pz Korp should be something that is avoided...as it will take months to rebuild the Pz Divisions. I rarely have more than a few more Pz Korp than what I start with in 41.

As far a Partisan's are concerned, they should make a permanent change in territory until removed. This will require the german to use his security troops as partisan smackers as they were used histroically. I have all of mine in single division INF Korp and they hunt out and kill the partisans when the show up (true I don't need to do this but I do it anyway). You can always do this as a house rule on the german players honor.

kisslove · Post by **kisslove** » Thu Aug 09, 2001 7:38 pm

Originally posted by Josan:
Searching a solution for my "damned tactic" I found one thing that I believe is wrong about panzer corps. I am not sure at all so any comments are welcome

I explain :

The four panzer cops units available in the utility menu historically were not at the begining of the game.
- The 16th Pz Corps was formed in Berlin in 1937 to control the original panzer divisions. In 1939 was in Poland and in the West in 1940. In 1941 convert to 4th Pz Group and upgraded in late 41 to panzer army status.

All PzGroups were renamed to PzArmies so it's just name( at least in game

- The 19th Pz Corps was formed in May 1939 as XIX motorized. In 1940 was redesignated as Group Guderian or 19 Pz C. In 1941 redesignated 2nd Pz Group and upgraded to Pz Army status in December.
- 58th Pz Corps was formed in 1943 as Reserve Corps in France.
- The 76th Pz Corps was formed in the summer of 1943 in Italy remaining on italian front.

Corps in game - just containeer: no commanders no staffs of corpses, so IMO it's just doesn't matter what is the corps name.

So if no wrongs the four Pz Corps are not available. The first two because seems are the same units and the others did not fight in the eastern front. I hope somebody can verify this.
This limitation can make the german think twice to send the corps behind enemy lines.

Again: corps is not combat unit it is just pack of high officers so if one destroyed nothing holds me from creating another one, it can be simply created fom any inf corps.

Another (and I think historically)limitation is delay the availability of the panzer corps once are destroyed at style of normal units. This is an idea of Lorenzo and We are doing in our 42 game (house rules you Know).

-=skip=-

AH!! One thing more!!!

The partisans are not strong enough I think. One easy possibility is garrisoning all cities with at less one division. One task for security divisions!!! In wir the partisans are not a serious problem for the germans.

not all units are present in the game, historicaly partisans were not too strong force to capture cities, exeption IMHO: balkans.

Please, what do think about it )
Josan " the unrealistic gamer"

O yes, you are!

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:23 am

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
I can't comment on the Pz Korp because I don't have any source material to check.

For the reformation time I don't see why there should be a delay. The Korp is just an in game administrative feature in reality the german's could easily create "Kampfgruppe" and so on quickly to replace lost formations. So reforming a Korp should be no problem. But the loss of a real Pz Korp should be something that is avoided...as it will take months to rebuild the Pz Divisions. I rarely have more than a few more Pz Korp than what I start with in 41.

In any case I think 1 week of delay is too shortly.

As far a Partisan's are concerned, they should make a permanent change in territory until removed. This will require the german to use his security troops as partisan smackers as they were used histroically. I have all of mine in single division INF Korp and they hunt out and kill the partisans when the show up (true I don't need to do this but I do it anyway). You can always do this as a house rule on the german players honor.

I agree with you. I put this in my house rules list

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 2:09 am

Alexey,

I dont see the reason to use the units if were not available historically. If 16th Pz corps is the same unit as 4th Pz army I think must be removed. We want a historically WIR, arent you?

About the delay of panzer korps seems too much easy make one each week throughout the entire war. If you lost a Pz K each week no problem I raise another. I dont know well this but at less is curious for me.

In the case of partisans I disagree with you. I will try to find any source about this. In many wargames I have played ( usually boardgames )the partisans always were a problem for the germans. For example in Europa Series FITE/Scorched Earth boardgame the partisans have a hard impact in the game. And if you know this game and his author (John Astell)will know is one of the more realistics games ever made with an excelents OBs. Can Astell and his team are wrong ?

O yes, you are!

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Oh Mine God, another guy who hates me!!!

Josan " the

gamer "

kisslove · Post by **kisslove** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 2:55 am

Originally posted by Josan:
Alexey,

I dont see the reason to use the units if were not available historically. If 16th Pz corps is the same unit as 4th Pz army I think must be removed.
We want a historically WIR, arent you?

He-he... (suppose to be smile here, but the told me only 8 allowed)

About 16 PzCorps:
Well I'm not sure about 16 PzCorps history... but anyway, if it(16PzC) was what then can stop me from rebuilding it from zero?

Anyway IMO there should be ability to rename units 4ex: I want to create 'Kisslove PzCorps'

About the delay of panzer korps seems too much easy make one each week throughout the entire war. If you lost a Pz K each week no problem I raise another. I dont know well this but at less is curious for me.

1 Month? seems good to me...

In the case of partisans I disagree with you. I will try to find any source about this. In many wargames I have played ( usually boardgames )the partisans always were a problem for the germans. For example in Europa Series FITE/Scorched Earth boardgame the partisans have a hard impact in the game. And if you know this game and his author (John Astell)will know is one of the more realistics games ever made with an excelents OBs. Can Astell and his team are wrong ?

I don't know, never seen this game Partizans were good in diversant actions such as rail damadge, but keep 1 division to resist them lets say div about 100 sq it's 5000 men... if combat success (by military doctrine) can be achieved with ratio attacker/defender 3/1 then there suppose to be 1500 partisans, but how will you feed them in swamps and forests?!

O yes, you are!

Oh Mine God, another guy who hates me!!!

No-o-o-o, I'm not!!!

Josan " the gamer "

Me too

JustAGame · Post by **JustAGame** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 12:28 pm

The "Partisans" effect should remain as an abstract IMO. If one requires the Germans to garrison or reoccupy to eliminate the partisans, then the same requirement should be made of the Soviets. Even then, it wouldn't make their representation in the game more "historically" accurate. The partisans were not only a thorn in the side of the Germans, but were also often belligerent or considered "threatening" to the Soviets as well as each other.

Although, I think it would make for a fun game a la Fortress America.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:35 pm

Alexey,

I like it call a Pz Corps "kisslove Pz Corps"

. Another name could be "kissmyass Pz Corps"

Sure the the soviets fears if they must fight against this units

One month of delay of Pz corps as you stated sounds good to me. I dont know the exactly delay can be but any is needed I think

If you can get the Europa Series from GRD/GDW I sinceraly recommend you.

Yours

Josan

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Fri Aug 10, 2001 2:08 pm

Originally posted by JustAGame:
The "Partisans" effect should remain as an abstract IMO.

If the engine manages the partisans as an abstract IMO using units not represented in the game ist OK but Im not sure if do that.

If one requires the Germans to garrison or reoccupy to eliminate the partisans, then the same requirement should be made of the Soviets. Even then, it wouldn't make their representation in the game more "historically" accurate. The partisans were not only a thorn in the side of the Germans, but were also often belligerent or considered "threatening" to the Soviets as well as each other.

Im disagree. I will try to learn more about this but I still think the partisans had a more impact in the war and were more belligerent against the germans than the soviets. ( I think the Special Detachments of the SS help too much to growth the psrtisans elements )

Although, I think it would make for a fun game a la Fortress America.

Josan the :p gamer

JustAGame · Post by **JustAGame** » Sat Aug 11, 2001 8:40 am

Originally posted by Josan:

Josan the :p gamer

I'm not saying the partisans were ineffective against the Germans. In fact, Army Group Center had a particularly difficult time in dealing with the supply line demolitions. In one night, 19-20/JUN/44, the partisans successfully detonated over 10000 explosions out of the 15000 attempted along the rail supply lines in Army Group Center's area.

What I was pointing out is that the dynamics of the partisan activities in occupied Eastern Europe would be encompassing enough to warrant a game that just deals with the rear area war. WIR doesn't have any representation of the security battalions, German or native. WIR doesn't represent partisan bands in numbers at all. WIR doesn't have a model to reflect the political goals or agendas of the myriad of partisan groups. WIR doesn't have a model to manage the effect of the type of unit administering a district.

Short of being able to represent the rear area war in detailed accuracy (to include the numerous security battalions, native security units, the assorted factions of partisans,etc.), it is my belief that WIR should continue to deal with partisans in the abstract manner that it uses now.

It would be nifty if the game had a feature that allowed your specified partisan unit to attack within a radius (like an airstrike). Being able to blow a bridge while assuming the risk of losing your partisan squads to security forces might add some fun, but our aircraft can't even blow a bridge yet.

I hope I have made it more clear that I don't see partisans as irrelevant. I just don't feel this game could adequately portray the rear area war and should avoid making a half-hearted attempt at giving it more detail.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sat Aug 11, 2001 1:45 pm

Originally posted by JustAGame:

I'm not saying the partisans were ineffective against the Germans. In fact, Army Group Center had a particularly difficult time in dealing with the supply line demolitions. In one night, 19-20/JUN/44, the partisans successfully detonated over 10000 explosions out of the 15000 attempted along the rail supply lines in Army Group Center's area.

What I was pointing out is that the dynamics of the partisan activities in occupied Eastern Europe would be encompassing enough to warrant a game that just deals with the rear area war. WIR doesn't have any representation of the security battalions, German or native. WIR doesn't represent partisan bands in numbers at all. WIR doesn't have a model to reflect the political goals or agendas of the myriad of partisan groups. WIR doesn't have a model to manage the effect of the type of unit administering a district.

Short of being able to represent the rear area war in detailed accuracy (to include the numerous security battalions, native security units, the assorted factions of partisans,etc.), it is my belief that WIR should continue to deal with partisans in the abstract manner that it uses now.

It would be nifty if the game had a feature that allowed your specified partisan unit to attack within a radius (like an airstrike). Being able to blow a bridge while assuming the risk of losing your partisan squads to security forces might add some fun, but our aircraft can't even blow a bridge yet.

I hope I have made it more clear that I don't see partisans as irrelevant. I just don't feel this game could adequately portray the rear area war and should avoid making a half-hearted attempt at giving it more detail.

Yes perhaps you are right. Is difficult to add new things in a game like WIR but I felt the partisans can do something more in the game. I thought that garrisoning the cities would be a easy form to show the partisans impact but I suppose I was wrong.

By the way, what do you think about the availability of the four panzer corps and possible delay of destroyed ones ?

Josan.

JustAGame · Post by **JustAGame** » Sun Aug 12, 2001 12:16 pm

Originally posted by Josan:

...
By the way, what do you think about the availability of the four panzer corps and possible delay of destroyed ones ?

Josan.

I am not certain. On one hand, it seems appropriate for the player to have the flexibility to reallocate divisions to new map "containers" as we see fit. On the other hand, it should reflect a realistic time frame for the reorganization. Where I am uncertain is how long it took to reorganize the command and control of a korps and how well the game's readiness penalties already accomodate for that reorganization.

By the way, I don't think you are wrong in wanting the game to include the rear area war in more detail. I am hoping that Gary Grigsby at least considers adding that depth to the eventual update of WIR. It would require a significant amount of research and time on his part, but it would definitely be more realistic as both the Soviets and Germans saw the rear area war as a major front even during the planning for Barbarosa and in Soviet pre-war planning for the defense of the Soviet Union. It can easily be argued that Army Group Center collapsed on the combat front because of their losses on the front behind the front.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Sun Aug 12, 2001 3:05 pm

Originally posted by JustAGame:

By the way, I don't think you are wrong in wanting the game to include the rear area war in more detail. I am hoping that Gary Grigsby at least considers adding that depth to the eventual update of WIR. It would require a significant amount of research and time on his part, but it would definitely be more realistic as both the Soviets and Germans saw the rear area war as a major front even during the planning for Barbarosa and in Soviet pre-war planning for the defense of the Soviet Union. It can easily be argued that Army Group Center collapsed on the combat front because of their losses on the front behind the front.

I hope too

Lets pray for Saint Grigsby hear us

Josan " the mmmmm.... gamer "

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 1:59 am

First, there's always an "s" in Corps / Korps. No such word Korp / Corp.

Second, unless surrounded (Stalingrad for example) the loss of a Pz Korps didn't realy entail an actual loss of the HQ which was usually some miles to the rear. A Korps HQ could be rapidly assembled / relocated from other units / HQs. The formation of Army Group 'Don' assigned to Manstein in the middle of the Stalingrad debacle took only a few days, The Army Gp HQ was waiting for Manstein when he arrived from AG North. (what ticked Manstein off was that there was no combat units for his new "Army Group").

Lastly, at least in the original game (SSI releases) there is a limit on the number of Panzer Korps that you are allowed to have. Keep trying to activate new PZ Korps in blank rear area hexes and you will soon start getting Inf Korps HQs. I think that only about 4 additional PZ Korps were allowed in the original with the 1st and 2nd SS PZ Korps eventually being available in 1943-44.

Admittedly this is a lot more the 5 Tank Armies the soviets are allowed (with this being a slow build up from 1 in 1942) but hey, the Germans were better at controlling their mobile units and the limitation of 5 on the soviets reflects this.

I could see this as being a problem if WiR becomes a divisional level game becaue then the soviet player would have large numbers of Tank / Mechanized Corps without a limitation on their employment as in the current corps level game.

Bottom line, Korps HQs could easily be assembled and units did move in / out of Korps (although not as frequently as you might think).

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 2:41 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Santos:
[QB]First, there's always an "s" in Corps / Korps. No such word Korp / Corp.

Well, seems annoy you with my english. Try to read all the post and will see that also I write Corps. Seems you never mistake.
But thank you for help me in learn english better!!! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

I see you have more and full knowledge about the organization of panzer corps so I dont argue with you ( I dont want hurt your eyes with my replies.)

P.S. Sure you can find more errors in this post so your help is welcome <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Josan " the evil spaniard " <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 1:19 pm

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Admittedly this is a lot more the 5 Tank Armies the soviets are allowed (with this being a slow build up from 1 in 1942) but hey, the Germans were better at controlling their mobile units and the limitation of 5 on the soviets reflects this.

Not exactly. The '44 scenario includes the "Mobile Groups", which act as tank armies. Thus in the '44 scenario the Soviets have 8 tank armies, just like the Germans. The argument is why take away these 3 units from the Soviets in the older scenarios when they are allowed in the Campaign '44 scenario? Its not clear why Gary created these "Mobile Groups", especially since they show up in only the '44 scenario, not all of them. There is an entry in the issues list about this. The game could easily have these Mobile Groups given to the Soviets in '44, as the 6th, 7th and 8th Soviet Tank Armies.

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

JustAGame · Post by **JustAGame** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 1:30 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

...The argument is why take away these 3 units from the Soviets in the Campaign '41 scenario when they are allowed in the Campaign '42 scenario? Its not clear why Gary created these "Mobile Groups" instead of the 6th, 7th, and 8th Soviet tank armies, especially since they show up in only a couple of scenarios, not all of them.

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Those are good questions!!!

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 2:57 pm

Ed writes Its not clear why Gary created these "Mobile Groups", especially since they show up in only the '44 scenario, not all of them.

I believe it is because there were actual formations called "mobile group" which existed only at this particular time. I would think the soviet player should get them in 44 to reflect their historic existance. But not have them earlier. But this is from a vague memory of a map of one of the later battles where I saw "mobile group #" on one of the units...I could be right out to lunch.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 3:02 pm

Originally posted by JustAGame:

Those are good questions!!!

You caught me before I could correct my post. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I should have checked first before posting rather then after. Only the '44 scenario has those extra three Mobile Groups. The question is still valid, though. If the Soviets have 8 tank armies in the '44 scenario, why don't the Soviets get those 3 armies in the other scenarios when they reach 1944?

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 6:45 pm

The Soviets actually formed Mobile Groups throughout the war, at least beginning in the spring of 1942. Basically they would take the mobile formations (tank, mechanized and cavalry) in a regular army and form them into a "mobile" group, which was typically named after the commander. For example, there was a Group Bobkin used during the second battle of Kharkov in May 1942, which consisted of some of the mobile elements of the southern wing of the Soviet attack. These groups were used at Stalingrad, during the Soviets follow up attacks during the winter of 1942-1943 that almost reached the Dnepr before Manstein counterattacked, etc.