Der Ivan kommt!

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
If the temp MP is 50 ( no change) and fuel is at 50% then you get 25 MPs
If the temp MP is 45 (only 90%) and fuel is at 50% then you get 24 MPs...

At least reading Dinglir I think what they are saying is

If the temp MP is 50 ( no change) and fuel is at 50% then you get 25 MPs
If the temp MP is 45 (only 90%) and fuel is at 50% then you get 25 MPs also
as 25 is the minimum of temp MP (45) and low fuel MP (25)

[56ajax]

Whilst I may have a slightly different interpretation of the rule I would agree that substantially low fuel overrides MP loss from fatigue.

Thus only bomb Panzers when their tanks are full

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

Whilst I may have a slightly different interpretation of the rule I would agree that substantially low fuel overrides MP loss from fatigue.

Thus only bomb Panzers when their tanks are full

I sense frustration but there are other reasons to ground bomb like for example increase detection, plus ground bombing lowers CV . That might be a failed hasty attack ..

[Dinglir]

Turn nine.

[Telemecus]

This result, with no fighters defending a day bombing mission, certainly makes me think the Axis percentage required to fly is 25% or more - and many of the Axis fighter groups are below it. I know this approach is more my thing. But I would have thought, given your action in your game against Hermann realising they had no fighter defence then, that you might have thought to do the same this time?

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus



This result, with no fighters defending a day bombing mission, certainly makes me think the Axis percentage required to fly is 25% or more - and many of the Axis fighter groups are below it. I know this approach is more my thing. But I would have thought, given your action in your game against Hermann realising they had no fighter defence then, that you might have thought to do the same this time?

Obviously, Huw is the only person who can give a final quote on his fighter setings.

My impression at this time was that the reluctance to fly was mainly due to high fatigue. I often saw a few fighters flying in the first couple of battles of my turn, before they decided to stay on the airfield for the eventual bombing attacks.

Those few fighter missions were often done by Gruppen with no more than five or ten ready fighters on them (if I recall correctly).

In any case, letting the Luftwaffe "slip" to allow for such bombings as this (whatever the cause) is a mistake in my opinion.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
My impression at this time was that the reluctance to fly was mainly due to high fatigue.

I know this has often been quoted and is a common belief among many including myself previously. But I have become more and more convinced that there is no such thing as too fatigued to fly. The performance in combat may be severely impeded, and it might not be the first choice of the AI to send into combat, but if that is the only fighter group that can intercept then fatigue, no matter how high, will never stop it.

Instead what we usually think is high fatigue stopping fighters from flying is usually in fact air doctrine, lack of airbase supplies or occasionally weather or bad ratings checks. I think I have a lot of evidence for this, but it is difficult to control the conditions of a test during the other side's action phase. And probably only someone like Morvael could give a definitive answer. As I know you do pay attention to air combat results I would be interested if you see more evidence to support or deny this over time.

[Dinglir]

What I have seen (from memory, I will take a closer look) is this:

1) When I do my intial Recon missions, I sometimes get a few interceptors for the first few recon missions in each area. After this, the intercept missions tend to stop. This is even if there are no more than 5-10 flightworthy aircraft to each Gruppe, indicating that requirements to fly are very low.
2) When I bomb frontline units as my second action of the turn, I do not see interceptors flying - I guess this is because og high fatigue levels.
3) When I then bomb the airfields, I sometimes get interceptors flying. My suspicion is that fatigue levels are ignored when defending airfields against enemy bombers but not against other mission types.

I am not sure, as I simply do not know the flight settings and/or the supply levels of my opponent.

[Huw Jones]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

What I have seen (from memory, I will take a closer look) is this:

1) When I do my intial Recon missions, I sometimes get a few interceptors for the first few recon missions in each area. After this, the intercept missions tend to stop. This is even if there are no more than 5-10 flightworthy aircraft to each Gruppe, indicating that requirements to fly are very low.
2) When I bomb frontline units as my second action of the turn, I do not see interceptors flying - I guess this is because og high fatigue levels.
3) When I then bomb the airfields, I sometimes get interceptors flying. My suspicion is that fatigue levels are ignored when defending airfields against enemy bombers but not against other mission types.

I am not sure, as I simply do not know the flight settings and/or the supply levels of my opponent.

When winter arrives ask me again.

[Dinglir]

Turn ten

[Dinglir]

Turn eleven.

[Telemecus]

MG battalions were found to be very good anti-dotes to soaking attacks although not so important with the nerfs to that tactic now. Also in the battle resolution as it goes through different ranges, the MG battalions cover the ranges that tanks are not very good at. So on the basis of unlike SUs are better than like SUs I would say MG battalions are quite a good choice for Panzer divisions. I am assuming on this turn the Axis will still have a vehicle surplus, so their motorisation will not affect movement points now?

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus


MG battalions were found to be very good anti-dotes to soaking attacks although not so important with the nerfs to that tactic now. Also in the battle resolution as it goes through different ranges, the MG battalions cover the ranges that tanks are not very good at. So on the basis of unlike SUs are better than like SUs I would say MG battalions are quite a good choice for Panzer divisions. I am assuming on this turn the Axis will still have a vehicle surplus, so their motorisation will not affect movement points now?

I think it might be worth providing a background here for the new reader.

The typical ol' AH or SPI boardgame consisted of matching up combat values and achieving a 3:1 ratio for assured victory. Other odds ratios yielded various results from total elimination of the attacker to various forms of exchange ratios I might propose that many players who have never seen one of the old wargames still might think that WITE works like that .. it is more complicated.

Rather than consult a single combat results table, each element applies their multiple factors vs an element of the opposite side (no friendly fire here [:D]) . It is a Rochambeau like match up of armor, infantry, and artillery made complex by that certain artillery is good against both armor and infantry, and well lots of combination that have advantages and disadvantages. For example, it has been discussed that 20mm quad flak is quite effective against squads of all types but obviously vulnerable to lot's of devices. The match up happens in ranges with the longest range attacking device starting first and the ranges descending with devices doing their thing against a random squad or device.

So that brings about thinking in terms of a Pareto of enemy devices and squads. For example:

A 42a Guards division consist of:

337 Rifle squads
18 engineer squads
54 SMG squads
228 Infantry AT
112 MG
85 Light Mortars
85 Mortars
30 AT Guns
16 Medium Art devices
9 AAMG
6 Light flak
24 Light art
18 heavy mortors
12 INf Guns
233 Support Squads

10,680 men 100% TO&E.

A quick check shows that 50mm guns mounted on tanks with slow rates of fire are not as effective as say a 20mm flak device or a MG squad vs a soft target. I want high rates of fire ... and have a probability of disrupting/damaging/destroying more Soviets than Germans getting disrupted. There are lot's of choices here and variables. Assuming clear terrain and no forts maximum ROF is great. The attacker gets no terrain bonus and thus Soviets attacking Panzer divisions using infantry Corps might be best matched with MG SU's as you will disrupt the maximum number of Soviet squads at the range where the Soviet infantry are going to do their worse to your precious tanks.

The German attack vs. defensive terrain alters the calculus considerably. Here 105's mounted on Pz I's might be the ticket as your units might not make it to MG range. The goal is to disrupt as many of the defensive devices as quickly and efficiency as possible. AS the real damage is done operationally using pockets and not tactically damaging units that end up damaging your Panzers ...

Now a 42b Soviet Tank Corps has 162 tanks and 398 soft devices and squads. Given 100% TO&E that makes it 40% probable that your attacking device is going to engage a harder target. That changes the German SU needs. For example, I attach better AT and tank hunter units in this case. Given the above odds you are going to be just under 50% likely to engage a harder target than an infantry squad.

This assumes a straight up calculation. But the Soviets have reserve activation and can change the calculus tremendously. The Soviet's can bring 1000's of tubes to a fight as well as armor units etc. So a controversy of sorts trying to understand the best mix of SU's.

The attack using weaker units first to absorb ammo, supplies, and cause fatigue has been nerfed. But the Soviet player at one time could bring weak units into battle cause the above and then have an attack with strong units to push the armor around. There is a +1 MP penalty for every attack from a hex after the first attack and I think and extra die roll or CV comparison between firepower rounds. I am seeing much less action in these low odds attacks where the attacker gets off the long range shots defense fires back and after the first round the "soak off" attack stops with little casualties. The exception is if the defense passes a counterattack die roll and then the roles reverse.A lot more engagements occur at higher losses.

Hopefully that clarifies the conversation ..

[Bear1888]

I tend to give my Panzerdivisions at least 1 SPG, 1 mot. AA and 1 pioneer battalion.

But I am in summer 43 where mobility is not that important for the Panzerdivisions anymore but high CV and the ability to counterattack.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Bear1888

I tend to give my Panzerdivisions at least 1 SPG, 1 mot. AA and 1 pioneer battalion.

But I am in summer 43 where mobility is not that important for the Panzerdivisions anymore but high CV and the ability to counterattack.

Those Heavy Panzer Battalions will add some CV [:'(] (Turn 96 you get one ... Turn 106 you get 2 .. )

[Bear1888]

Aye. I still have them under OKH command.

Will commit them when some kind of main thrust of the red army is identified. They should do fine against those soviet T-34/76 and SU-76.

[Huw Jones]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus


MG battalions were found to be very good anti-dotes to soaking attacks although not so important with the nerfs to that tactic now. Also in the battle resolution as it goes through different ranges, the MG battalions cover the ranges that tanks are not very good at. So on the basis of unlike SUs are better than like SUs I would say MG battalions are quite a good choice for Panzer divisions. I am assuming on this turn the Axis will still have a vehicle surplus, so their motorisation will not affect movement points now?

The aim has been for a panzer division to have:

1 Pioneer unit.
1 SPG unit
1 Flak battalion

But very battered SUs are sent back to OKH for refitting, so shove in whats available at the time.

[Huw Jones]

"However, I also notice that the Security Regiment was attached
directly to OKH, meaning a significant drop in CV on that unit. I cannot help to think, that Huw seems a little
relaxed about such details. However, I think that if you add up all the details, they do matter. In any case,
the attack was another success."

Security units are mostly OKH for me at the start and just helping fill the lines until they reach their designated City, don't want to spend admin points attaching them to nearest corp.

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
I am assuming on this turn the Axis will still have a vehicle surplus, so their motorisation will not affect movement points now?

I am not privy to information about the Axis vehicle pool, but I assume it is sufficient.

However, having more than 100% requirements mean that fuel depots will build up in HQ's, which in turn will mean there are more fuel to be sent forward to units. That should mean a little extra MP.

[EwaldvonKleist]

However, having more than 100% requirements mean that fuel depots will build up in HQ's, which in turn will mean there are more fuel to be sent forward to units. That should mean a little extra MP.

That is not correct. Vehicles above 100% have exactly zero effect.