I still don't understand the 'Soviet doctrine' module that is listed in the 'CO2 future plans' thread. I thought the Soviets had a number of different doctrines, starting at 'useless' doctrine for 1941 to 'copied' doctrine starting somewhere in late '42.
Why would the Soviets need a seperate doctrine file? And how much work would you hazard to guess is needed to shake it out? Do all the nationalities have their own doctrine currently in game?
Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Moderators: Panther Paul, Arjuna
-
SapperAstro_MatrixForum
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 9:05 pm
- Location: Penrith, Australia
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Think of mass attacks..lack of comms etc..all this would need to be modeled somehow into the game esp early war. Pointless having the soviets fight just like the Germans. You may aswell just change the counter from German to Russian put in the Russian equip and it's done..they;d fight like Germans in Russian equip. Just wouldn't play right. As the war goes on then yes it would even up but near the start something i.e doctrine needs to be in to make it play right..out numbered Germans fighting and winning, esp in defense, you want to still stand a chance having say a battalion holding off a regiment or two on attack.
The Russians more so than any of the other major players do need abit of special work as I said esp early war.
This is another area where I think commander stats at present don't have enough influence on how the game plays out. I think low stat commanders and your coy's have trouble shaking out into formation..may attack piecemeal or frontal only etc etc. Where as the high stat commanders the coy's should perform really well..and the highest stat commanders the units they are in charge of should perform amazingly well..also I think the battalion commander stats should have the biggest impact. Coy commanders depending on their situation depends on how important the commander stats are. This is how you'd get something similar to Arnhem with John frost in charge coy's hold on alot longer than if you had a poor or OK commander. The commander stats in game could be the key to really giving the units personality and add o realism.
Dismounts and doctrine are for me the most important features required in the next game of the series.
The Russians more so than any of the other major players do need abit of special work as I said esp early war.
This is another area where I think commander stats at present don't have enough influence on how the game plays out. I think low stat commanders and your coy's have trouble shaking out into formation..may attack piecemeal or frontal only etc etc. Where as the high stat commanders the coy's should perform really well..and the highest stat commanders the units they are in charge of should perform amazingly well..also I think the battalion commander stats should have the biggest impact. Coy commanders depending on their situation depends on how important the commander stats are. This is how you'd get something similar to Arnhem with John frost in charge coy's hold on alot longer than if you had a poor or OK commander. The commander stats in game could be the key to really giving the units personality and add o realism.
Dismounts and doctrine are for me the most important features required in the next game of the series.
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Judging by what I've read and by the casualty rates, Russians should have 0-25% training and most of their commanders should have skills well below 50%.
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
The game currently gives the commander the chance to give orders more efficiently than real life commanders, as you always know precisely where your units are. You also have more time to calculate a reasonable orders delay when giving new orders. Those things are less problematic for company level operations for armies with plenty of radios or a strong focus on smart independent actions and flexibility, both things the Soviets lacked at this scale.
The response times of artillery might also need to be adjusted, as for me one of the main shortcomings in the game is that nothing prevents the player or AI from ordering every single artillery unit within range to fire on the same target. Though this did occur from time to time, it seems more common in the game than what the literature suggests. For the Soviets, with most of the artillery centralized at army level or in separate divisions, such flexibility would be unthinkable.
I'm guessing much longer order delays, more reorganization, some sort of penalty for artillery fire after the initial barrage/a certain time period, mediocre unit quality and commanders and less flexible mobile units could be a part of Soviet doctrine. Due to the scale, a "Schwerpunkt" attack will nearly always work better than a front-wide attack as you have only a limited amount of time to achieve objectives.
The Soviet deep battle theory would be a limited factor on the current map sizes, but they might be on larger maps. If the game mostly covers mid-war operations, Soviet operational flexibility is primitive to begin with and mobile units would still be fairly weak, not to mention that cavalry-mechanized groups would be missing, as well as the light tank destroyers in the quantities the infantry needs to make good use of them.
A 1942-1943 Soviet doctrine is interesting as the Soviets would slowly be moving towards more efficient operations and towards being able to launch large scale offensives with both mobile units and infantry, instead of the infantry-heavy attacks earlier in the war (such as the winter counteroffensive in 1941-1942, where the Soviets had a limited number of tanks compared to later in the war due to losses and factories moving to the Urals).
The response times of artillery might also need to be adjusted, as for me one of the main shortcomings in the game is that nothing prevents the player or AI from ordering every single artillery unit within range to fire on the same target. Though this did occur from time to time, it seems more common in the game than what the literature suggests. For the Soviets, with most of the artillery centralized at army level or in separate divisions, such flexibility would be unthinkable.
I'm guessing much longer order delays, more reorganization, some sort of penalty for artillery fire after the initial barrage/a certain time period, mediocre unit quality and commanders and less flexible mobile units could be a part of Soviet doctrine. Due to the scale, a "Schwerpunkt" attack will nearly always work better than a front-wide attack as you have only a limited amount of time to achieve objectives.
The Soviet deep battle theory would be a limited factor on the current map sizes, but they might be on larger maps. If the game mostly covers mid-war operations, Soviet operational flexibility is primitive to begin with and mobile units would still be fairly weak, not to mention that cavalry-mechanized groups would be missing, as well as the light tank destroyers in the quantities the infantry needs to make good use of them.
A 1942-1943 Soviet doctrine is interesting as the Soviets would slowly be moving towards more efficient operations and towards being able to launch large scale offensives with both mobile units and infantry, instead of the infantry-heavy attacks earlier in the war (such as the winter counteroffensive in 1941-1942, where the Soviets had a limited number of tanks compared to later in the war due to losses and factories moving to the Urals).
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The game currently gives the commander the chance to give orders more efficiently than real life commanders, as you always know precisely where your units are. You also have more time to calculate a reasonable orders delay when giving new orders. Those things are less problematic for company level operations for armies with plenty of radios or a strong focus on smart independent actions and flexibility, both things the Soviets lacked at this scale.
Maybe there is a case for this then..Lets say in game a Commander with low stats means the order delay should be variable..i.e the delay time given is the best he would do..but it could be worse and take longer..the worse the commander stats the more chance it will take longer and the extra time could be greater. This would be done randomly with an odds chance mechanic. Also as I said I'd like the commanders have alot more influence in how the units fight..from poor\loose formations, late attacks, piece meal attacks etc..the better the Stats the better they fight with noticeable less moral drop..noticeable lack of cohesion loss...better at timing attacks (I.e a great brigade\regiment commander will time the attacks of his battalions perfectly during attack...a noticeable effect on keeping their ground etc etc.
Talking about that I still find retreat annoying. A dug in coy with max losses set that I wanted to hold on as long as possible to stop an allied push retreated after 4 casualties. It's extremely hard to defend at times. I doubt this will ever really be changed and is just something you have to deal with with this particular game.
-
SapperAstro_MatrixForum
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 9:05 pm
- Location: Penrith, Australia
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
From what I have seen in this thread, surely the Western Allies, particularly the French, have to have their own '1940' doctrine? Otherwise, as stated, the same business occurs where you have both sides doing the same thing in the 'Blitzkrieg' addon?
As for the Commander ratings; I thought all of these factors were already attributed (lower defence, slower reaction, lower morale, quicker to break, etc). That is where I believe many of the Russian (in)abilities early war can already be in place. If we were talking about the Japanese, I perhaps could understand the necessity of some type of 'Banzai' assault bonus to morale and fatigue in the short term with higher casualties, etc.
I don't know. I am still not convinced by the argument as put. I understand what you guys are saying, but believe this can already be taken care of by individual settings for each unit when making a scenario.
As for the Commander ratings; I thought all of these factors were already attributed (lower defence, slower reaction, lower morale, quicker to break, etc). That is where I believe many of the Russian (in)abilities early war can already be in place. If we were talking about the Japanese, I perhaps could understand the necessity of some type of 'Banzai' assault bonus to morale and fatigue in the short term with higher casualties, etc.
I don't know. I am still not convinced by the argument as put. I understand what you guys are saying, but believe this can already be taken care of by individual settings for each unit when making a scenario.
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Sapper the issue I have is the commander stats don't appear make any real significant difference...It needs to have a much bigger effect. Dave was the one who first mentioned doctrine was needed...e knows the game mechanics better than anyone..so if he thinks it's needed..it's needed.
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Good discussion guys. Sorry for not responding earlier but I have been preoccupied elsewhere at the moment.
The doctrinal differences between the Allied and Axis forces were most pronounced in the earlier part of the war where British and French armoured warfare doctrine lagged behind the German use of combined arms. By late 1944 all Western Allied forces had embraced the combined arms approach. The Brits were the last to make the change. It took the disaster of Op Goodwood in the Normandy battles to finally shift them.
The Soviets, however, had embraced combined arms early but had adopted a different approach to conducting offensive operations. They did so primarily because of the limitations within their own forces. Lack of effective radio control meant they were more fixed in terms of assigning objectives and phase lines. They lacked the means to react and reassess dynamically as the battle unfolded. This is what led to the decapitation and defeat in detail of their offensive forces post Stalingrad. With our current engine the Soviets would be able to reassess more quickly and thus avoid the headlong rush by their Tank Corps which so often left them vulnerable to encirclement and hence destruction. So reducing the abilities of Soviets forces to reassess plans is pretty essential in my book.
Further, the Soviet attack doctrine relied heavily on prepared bombardments. They just did not have the means to flexibly allocate arty on the fly as the battle progressed. So we need to reduce their ability to request and provide on call support and to add in a new prep bombard task within the attack.
Also they would often attack in ledge formation, either ledge left or right. For a Bn of three companies this would see two companies up front in line with the third company directly behind either the forward left or forward right companies. So we need to model these formations.
The use of Soviet cavalry formations also needs to be modelled. We currently do not have any dedicated doctrine for modelling the use of cavalry.
Furhter
The doctrinal differences between the Allied and Axis forces were most pronounced in the earlier part of the war where British and French armoured warfare doctrine lagged behind the German use of combined arms. By late 1944 all Western Allied forces had embraced the combined arms approach. The Brits were the last to make the change. It took the disaster of Op Goodwood in the Normandy battles to finally shift them.
The Soviets, however, had embraced combined arms early but had adopted a different approach to conducting offensive operations. They did so primarily because of the limitations within their own forces. Lack of effective radio control meant they were more fixed in terms of assigning objectives and phase lines. They lacked the means to react and reassess dynamically as the battle unfolded. This is what led to the decapitation and defeat in detail of their offensive forces post Stalingrad. With our current engine the Soviets would be able to reassess more quickly and thus avoid the headlong rush by their Tank Corps which so often left them vulnerable to encirclement and hence destruction. So reducing the abilities of Soviets forces to reassess plans is pretty essential in my book.
Further, the Soviet attack doctrine relied heavily on prepared bombardments. They just did not have the means to flexibly allocate arty on the fly as the battle progressed. So we need to reduce their ability to request and provide on call support and to add in a new prep bombard task within the attack.
Also they would often attack in ledge formation, either ledge left or right. For a Bn of three companies this would see two companies up front in line with the third company directly behind either the forward left or forward right companies. So we need to model these formations.
The use of Soviet cavalry formations also needs to be modelled. We currently do not have any dedicated doctrine for modelling the use of cavalry.
Furhter
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
That's really why I'm looking forwards to the Eastern Front. You have asymmetric operational styles, one side with vast resources but which can only be 'spent' once and the other side with all too few resources but the co-ordination and leadership to react to the changing situation.
-
SapperAstro_MatrixForum
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 9:05 pm
- Location: Penrith, Australia
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Thanks Arjuna,
Couldn't the Soviets be given an intrinsic severe orders delay? And this lessens over time on a sliding scale?
As for the bombardments, this could be done by giving them the lions share of their artillery strikes straight away with a timer given to 'use or lose'.
The other two points certainly are beyond me. I am guessing the engine has pre coded 'formations' for different actions and these match up with the German/WA side of the ledger, while the Russian system is not coded in? Would the Russian system ever 'match up' with the pre existing formations currently in game as the war progressed?
So in regards to the French 1940 battles, how will this be implemented? I guess the French, British, Belgians, Dutch, whoever else is involved will be given a similar orders delay? Or will this just fall to lower stats/morale/etc to give the same effect?
Couldn't the Soviets be given an intrinsic severe orders delay? And this lessens over time on a sliding scale?
As for the bombardments, this could be done by giving them the lions share of their artillery strikes straight away with a timer given to 'use or lose'.
The other two points certainly are beyond me. I am guessing the engine has pre coded 'formations' for different actions and these match up with the German/WA side of the ledger, while the Russian system is not coded in? Would the Russian system ever 'match up' with the pre existing formations currently in game as the war progressed?
So in regards to the French 1940 battles, how will this be implemented? I guess the French, British, Belgians, Dutch, whoever else is involved will be given a similar orders delay? Or will this just fall to lower stats/morale/etc to give the same effect?
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
The early war Brit armoured doctrine saw armour and inf operating more less separately. Their thinking was more an evolution of cavalry tactics rather than a comb9ned arms approach. This was reflected both in their structure with separate armoured and inf Bde's within the armoured division. Now the Germans in theory did likewise but in practice they cross attached, creating mixed KGs of armour and inf. The Yanks too initially did not cross attach but they learnt more quickly than the Brits and began cross attaching in 1943. This eventually saw them change the structure of their armoured divisions to the 44 standard with three combat commands each comprising one armour, one inf and one SP arty Bn.
What we really need is some logic that will govern the cross attachment when allocating forces sop that it comp[lies with national doctrine.
What we really need is some logic that will govern the cross attachment when allocating forces sop that it comp[lies with national doctrine.
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Sapper why are you opposed to this? Not sure why you don't think it should be done. Is it because you thinking along the lines of egtting the eF game out quicker? Personally I'd rather wait and have these features in game. I have no issue with Daves plans here and certainly wouldn't want him to bypass it.
-
jimcarravall
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
ORIGINAL: wodin
Sapper why are you opposed to this? Not sure why you don't think it should be done. Is it because you thinking along the lines of egtting the eF game out quicker? Personally I'd rather wait and have these features in game. I have no issue with Daves plans here and certainly wouldn't want him to bypass it.
I believe he's thinking out loud.
Doctrinal differences can be portrayed as measurable attributes inside unit effectiveness / health, organization, formation, and command span, and commander strengths at baseline Estab.
They also affect equipment capabilities / distribution, and supply, which are better reflected in the service, formation, or unit design.
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Honestly I think that the 'commander strengths' and similar stats should really be thrown under the hood in future. I don't need to know how 'reliable' or 'aggressive' an officer is and I've never looked because it is never going to matter. The nature of the scenario size and scopes mean that if I need to make an attack then I need to make an attack, and I need to use what the scenario gives me.
I'd love to know where people have really looked hard at a unit's experience/officer stats etc because as far as I'm concerned all of that could really be put under the covers and replaced in the UI with a simple 'combat efficency' style stat.
I'd love to know where people have really looked hard at a unit's experience/officer stats etc because as far as I'm concerned all of that could really be put under the covers and replaced in the UI with a simple 'combat efficency' style stat.
-
jimcarravall
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
ORIGINAL: Alchenar
Honestly I think that the 'commander strengths' and similar stats should really be thrown under the hood in future. I don't need to know how 'reliable' or 'aggressive' an officer is and I've never looked because it is never going to matter. The nature of the scenario size and scopes mean that if I need to make an attack then I need to make an attack, and I need to use what the scenario gives me.
I'd love to know where people have really looked hard at a unit's experience/officer stats etc because as far as I'm concerned all of that could really be put under the covers and replaced in the UI with a simple 'combat efficency' style stat.
Much of whether those data are useful depends on how one wants to handle control of forces and whether the scenario designer decided to go deep into the mechanics to model what occurred historically.
Since many battles turn on individual commander initiative, it's nice the AI considers commander attributes for control of a unit / force.
Bulge would be pretty boring if Peiper and Skorzeny didn't receive the special attributes necessary to lead their battle groups.
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Sure those stats should exist, but they seem to fall into the category of 'things the game never needs to show me because I can't do anything about it one way or the other'.
-
jimcarravall
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
ORIGINAL: Alchenar
Sure those stats should exist, but they seem to fall into the category of 'things the game never needs to show me because I can't do anything about it one way or the other'.
Consider that it offers you choices.
Some players want more choices than others.
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
ORIGINAL: Alchenar
Sure those stats should exist, but they seem to fall into the category of 'things the game never needs to show me because I can't do anything about it one way or the other'.
Consider that it offers you choices.
Some players want more choices than others.
It doesn't offer choices though? When has it ever offered you a choice?
In any of the game scenarios you have to make do with what you are given. Oh, my battalion commander lacks aggression? Tough. There's nobody else and I need that objective so off you go.
What would actually be useful from a user perspective is something similar to that which Sid Meier's Gettysburg! (surely we've all played that) did at the start of the scenario: "This is your best brigade" "These are veteran troops" etc etc.
When the stats aren't going to change over the course of the scenario and everything is pre-set, don't make me dig through tab after tab of raw stats to work out what my units are like, give me a quick 'these are elite shock troops' 'these guys are green and will run if someone sneezes at them' 'these guys are good but their CO tends to fuck up'.
e: this is a complexity vs depth pit that many wargames fall into. It's like when WitE rolls for every rifle squad in a corps v corps combat when all that really matters is that one side's CV is twice the other's. Complexity is all well and good, but if it isn't actually adding any depth then it should in general be tucked away where it can't disturb the player from the choices they actually have
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
Would it help if the Unit training and experience levels could be displayed in the unit info box like morale and fatigue are now?
RE: Arjuna:'Soviet Doctrine'?
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Would it help if the Unit training and experience levels could be displayed in the unit info box like morale and fatigue are now?
I'll have a think about it and get back to you (it's one of those things where I can see the problem quite clearly but the solution could be any number of things).
Does the game take into account training+exp when calculating the combat power value? Because that's really the default 'at a glance how powerful is this unit' stat.