Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Directive 21

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Directive 21 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Directive 21 - 10/19/2008 10:46:45 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Okay.  I've done my best to come up with a workable way to absorb the German infantry divisional HQs into their divisions, but I haven't been able to come with a workable solution.  I think the German infantry divisional HQs are cheesy and gamey, but for now I'm going to stop complaining about them because I can't come up with anything better.  They are what they are, for now.

However, I was able to combine the German security HQs with their component regiments rather easily (and simply place the combined division in the same hex where the HQ was).  It's not terribly important whether the divisions are given a proficiency of 65% or just leaving them at 70% like they were.

Further, while exploring possible solutions for the German infantry divisional HQ problem I've come to the conclusion that non-motorized artillery units (including divisional HQs) should be slower than their non-artillery counterparts.  How much slower depends on several factors: A) how heavy are the guns?; B) how big is the formation?; C) how efficient is the artillery fire command/control? 

For example, an elite German gebirgsjager horse-drawn regiment moving primarily light/medium howitzers will be much faster than a Soviet artillery division moving medium/heavy howitzers and guns.  Indeed, it might take the Soviet artillery division days to do what the German artillery regiment can do in hours.  How does this translate into game terms?  Here are some suggestions:
1) Soviet horse-drawn artillery should be very slow compared to the other nations, especially their artillery divisions.  The main reason is that it took the Soviets a very long time to set up and prepare their fire plans (and since each turn is only 3.5 days long, a big portion of a turn would be consumed just working out their ponderous fire/command/control).
2) German and Finnish horse-drawn artillery regiments/battalions should be about 1 MP slower than their corresponding combat infantry (for instance, a German gebirgsjager infantry regiment has an MR of 19, so a German gebirgsjager artillery regiment (or divisional HQ) should have an MR of 18).
3) Other nations should be between the Germans and the Soviets in terms of non-motorized artillery MRs.

For motorized artillery, the problems are much less severe, and any drop-off in Movement Rate should be tied mainly to the relative efficiency of the fire command/control, since prime movers and tractors move larger guns much more efficiently than horses.  This would mean that Soviet motorized artillery divisions would still be fairly slow (due to fire command/control issues), but German motorized artillery regiments might not suffer much MR penalties at all (maybe a MP or two) compared to their combat elements.

_____________________________


(in reply to cesteman)
Post #: 31
RE: Directive 21 - 10/19/2008 12:54:22 PM   
Menschenfresser

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: United States
Status: offline 		Once the front expands toward the east, the German player will have to break down those division sized units into brigades or regiments. It is an interesting design choice. I'm not sure why it was used rather than the standard 3 regiments. With a divided unit, the HQ seems less silly. The reason it's there is to give the divisional artillery a separate unit. The bigger problem as you state is the drop in proficiency. Personally, I think this should be done away with in TOAW, or at least give the designer the ability to turn it off. The only option other than redoing the OOB is to up the division's proficiency so when broken down it isn't so low. That what Stauffenberg did in his Plan Martin scenario. Or ratchet down the Soviet proficiencies to match. But let's see how it plays in the low run with a mid-60s regimental proficiency. Perhaps that's just the handicap a human player needs against the AI.

In practice, those divisional HQs are slower than their non-artillery counterparts. While the MPs might be similar, the fact is they require more MPs to move over rough or enemy terrain. On turn one, I already have a five hex distance between my HQs and foward units.


_____________________________

Make wargames, not war.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 32
RE: Directive 21 - 10/19/2008 8:41:45 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Victor, I looked at the German artillery regiments and it seems that they all basically fit the parameters you've put forth. The Soviet artillery divisions are all horse drawn and have a movement rate of 12, compared to 17 for the German non-motorised units. The Soviet Guards artillery divisions are motorised due to lend lease trucks.


quote:

I'm not sure why it was used rather than the standard 3 regiments.


Before D21 there was v653, a mod I did for my own play over a year ago. This mod included not only the Soviet side PO enabled, but several things that made it easier on me personally (unit colors, infantry divisions, etc.). When the PO idea sparked some interest, I had a choice of moving the PO to FitE, leaving it as v653, or doing nothing. I decided it would be nice if other solitaire players like me could enjoy such a great scenario as FitE, and it also seemed a shame that with the tremendous amount of work that went into it, that it was restricted to the pbem players only. So something was going to be done, but I did fear that others would disagree with the changes to v653. Not to mention the possibility of offending the original designers, something that I dearly did not want to do. So I posted the details of the changes, and I got no negative responses. Instead, all I got was positive feedback. Thanks for letting me explain the motivation here.

(My personal opinions here, from something I did for myself, and was subsequently transferred to D21). The infantry regiments were ponderous, time consuming, not necessary, and couldn't hold their own against the Soviet divisions. Technically, three regiments holding 30km at a proficiency of either 75 or 80% didn't seem appropriate to me, especially later in the campaign when high quality replacements were not available. A German division that is broken down still has higher proficiency than a standard Soviet infantry division. So the combination into one unit was a simple decision to make. I know it could be debated back and forth, but it's great from a playability standpoint. The comments I've gotten from playtesters so far have been all positive.

Mathematically, having to move so many regiments early in the scenario when it isn't necessary doesn't make for much fun. And I'd rather have the choice to concentrate or overextend where I want later in the scenario.

Cheers!

(in reply to Menschenfresser)
Post #: 33
RE: Directive 21 - 10/19/2008 10:08:21 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Victor, I looked at the German artillery regiments and it seems that they all basically fit the parameters you've put forth. The Soviet artillery divisions are all horse drawn and have a movement rate of 12, compared to 17 for the German non-motorised units. The Soviet Guards artillery divisions are motorised due to lend lease trucks.


As a random note, one thing I got from Glantz' Stumbling Colossus is that many, many Soviet artillery regiments had their guns but no transport at all when war broke out.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 34
RE: Directive 21 - 10/19/2008 10:21:20 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Victor, I looked at the German artillery regiments and it seems that they all basically fit the parameters you've put forth. The Soviet artillery divisions are all horse drawn and have a movement rate of 12, compared to 17 for the German non-motorised units. The Soviet Guards artillery divisions are motorised due to lend lease trucks.


As a random note, one thing I got from Glantz' Stumbling Colossus is that many, many Soviet artillery regiments had their guns but no transport at all when war broke out.



I know, I had thought at one time to remove all transport from the Soviet units at the beginning. Poor Elmer.

We've also juggled with no trucks at start, there could be disbanding lend lease truck units. Again, poor Elmer.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 35
RE: Directive 21 - 10/19/2008 10:40:49 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Victor, I looked at the German artillery regiments and it seems that they all basically fit the parameters you've put forth. The Soviet artillery divisions are all horse drawn and have a movement rate of 12, compared to 17 for the German non-motorised units. The Soviet Guards artillery divisions are motorised due to lend lease trucks.


As a random note, one thing I got from Glantz' Stumbling Colossus is that many, many Soviet artillery regiments had their guns but no transport at all when war broke out.



I know, I had thought at one time to remove all transport from the Soviet units at the beginning. Poor Elmer.

We've also juggled with no trucks at start, there could be disbanding lend lease truck units. Again, poor Elmer.


You can just automatically disband the truck units with events.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 36
RE: Directive 21 - 10/20/2008 3:24:44 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I agree with you, sPzAbt653.  It looks like Elmer is already moving his artillery slow enough.  No need to handicap him further.  I think you should just let him keep all his trucks.

And the more I examine the Axis artillery, the more I agree with you there, too.  The movement rates seem pretty reasonable.  I still have a lot of movement nits to pick (a movement point here and there), but that can wait until the larger issues have been settled.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 37
RE: Directive 21 - 10/20/2008 4:17:20 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Here is one of the "larger issues":  German panzer divisions. 

I like the "kampfgruppe" concept behind the panzer divisions, but I'm not very happy with the actual implementation.  The current implementation of Directive 21 (Rev-1) has three 'roughly balanced' KGs (one panzer and two panzergrenadier).  My reading of history suggests that the panzer divisions actually had four KGs, not three: KG 1 was the primary 'assault/breakthrough' KG; KG-2 was the first 'breakthrough support' KG; KG-3 was the second 'breakthrough support' KG; KG-4 was built around the recon battalion and was used for combat recon/pursuit. 

My reading of history says that a panzer division's KGs should not be balanced.  Indeed, they should be quite unbalanced.  The two most important KGs within the panzer division should be the assault KG and the recon KG, with the remaining two KGs providing backup and support. 

P.S.  The depiction of the Hermann Goring Panzer Division has me very puzzled.  Indeed, the evolution of the Hermann Goring combat units throughout Directive 21 seems incomplete at best.

P.P.S.  The 900th Lehr Brigade was a fully-motorized formation.  It had no wagons.  It should be a full-speed mobile formation.

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 38
RE: Directive 21 - 10/20/2008 9:09:09 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		I agree that there should be a fourth 'recon' KG. The number of available equipment slots in each unit prevented me from doing this. The alternative of making four unbalanced KG's may work from an historical unit arrangement perspective, but it doesn't work in the historical simulation of the scenario. By that I mean that the historical KG's were organised as stated, but then they could be altered depending on the situation. Later in the scenario when faced with being attacked by numbers of division sized units, the four KG arrangement would leave the two weaker KG's very vulnerable, and perhaps even a burden.

The mutations of the HG Pz Div also has me puzzled at times. I should purchase a book on the history of this unit. In lieu of that, I can take any advise you have on what to do there.

I think the Lehr Brigade had a few horse teams to allow the officers to go riding in the countryside during their recreational time.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 39
RE: Directive 21 - 10/20/2008 10:58:47 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		The screenshot below is an actual TO/E of 900th Lehr on 22 June 1941. There are no horses in that TO/E. All of the transport consists of trucks and halftracks. I realize that historical TO/Es have to be 'molded/altered' to fit the 'historical simulation' (mainly because of unit-slot limitations), but the historical fact is that 900th Lehr did not have any horse transport.

Instead of the 10 wagons + 160 trucks + 10 halftracks depicted in Directive 21 (Rev-1), I recommend 0 wagons + 168 trucks + 12 halftracks. This fully motorizes the brigade and also increases its speed to 33 MP, which is consistent with an elite mobile formation, thus more accurately portraying the unit in an 'historical simulation'.










Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 40
RE: Directive 21 - 10/20/2008 11:16:44 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I agree that there should be a fourth 'recon' KG. The number of available equipment slots in each unit prevented me from doing this. The alternative of making four unbalanced KG's may work from an historical unit arrangement perspective, but it doesn't work in the historical simulation of the scenario. By that I mean that the historical KG's were organised as stated, but then they could be altered depending on the situation. Later in the scenario when faced with being attacked by numbers of division sized units, the four KG arrangement would leave the two weaker KG's very vulnerable, and perhaps even a burden.



But we can do both things. Directive 21 already has an 'early-war' and a 'late-war' depiction of the panzer divisions.

The early-war version can be the 'unbalanced' attack version representing the offensive posture of the panzer divisions (certainly through 1942 and probably until Kursk). Think 'KG Peiper' when considering the spearhead/assault/breakthrough/overrun KG for the division. The early-war divisions need a powerful KG capable of overrunning and breaking through Soviet formations.

The late-war version can be the 'balanced' version similar to what already exists in Directive 21 (the only significant change in the later-war version I'd make would be to strengthen the recon KG (my reading of history indicates that StuGs and armored engineers were the main 'strengtheners' used to strengthen the recon KG)).


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 41
RE: Directive 21 - 10/20/2008 11:24:09 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The mutations of the HG Pz Div also has me puzzled at times. I should purchase a book on the history of this unit. In lieu of that, I can take any advise you have on what to do there.



The good news is that we have time to revise the OOB for the Herman Goring Division because the division (as a division) did not see combat on the Eastern Front until later in the war.

However, the unit that needs to be depicted immediately is the Regiment General Goring. This regiment was basically an overstrength Flak regiment (fully motorized) that had a battalion of panzergrenadiers (plus assorted small assets that a reinforced regiment would have) added. Regiment General Goring was present and active during Barbarossa.

EDIT: Regiment General Goring was originally attached to the 11th Panzer Division, and so can be deployed with that division on 22 June 41.


< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/20/2008 11:27:42 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 42
RE: Directive 21 - 10/21/2008 1:16:14 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Here is the TO/E of Regiment General Goring for Barbarossa:

Order of battle (15 Jun 1941)
Regimentsstab General Göring (Oberst Conrath)
Nachrichtenzug (Oberleutnant Schirmer)
Werkstattzug/RGG (Amtmann Gmelch)
Transport Group (Hauptmann Kumacsek)
I. Flak-Abteilung/RGG (Major Hullmann)
1. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Graf)
2. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Hauptmann Schulz)
3. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Hauptmann Schröder)
5. Batterie (12 x 2cm) (Hauptmann Neubauer)
IV. Flak-Abteilung/RGG (Hauptmann Geicke)
6. Batterie (9 x 3.7cm) (Oberleutnant Behrends)
15. Batterie (6 x 2cm; 6 x 3.7cm) (Hauptmann Beinhofer)
16. Batterie (mot S Ketten) (12 x 2cm) (Oberleutnant Roßmann)
Schützen-Bataillon/RGG (Hauptmann Funck)
8. Batterie (mot S Rader) (12 x 2cm) (Hauptmann Seewald)
1. Schützen-Kompanie (Oberleutnant Krohn)
3. Schützen-Kompanie (Hauptmann Brandenburg)
Kradschützen-Kompanie (Hauptmann Preuß)
II. Flak-Abteilung/Flak-Regiment 43 (Major Karlhuber)
6. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Rengermann)
7. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Wittkowsky)
8. Batterie (4 x 8.8cm) (Oberleutnant Hagel)
9. Batterie (12 x 2cm) (Oberleutnant Belau)
10. Batterie (12 x 2cm) (Hauptmann Schlechtweg)

EDIT1: From what I can tell, most of the transport (fully motorized) should be trucks with some halftracks (the halftracks were probably for the panzergrenadiers). I'm not sure about the recon assets, looks like mostly motorcycles with a few armored cars.

EDIT2: It looks like the regiment maintained this TO/E until the summer of 1942, when the regiment was withdrawn from the Eastern Front for reorganization into a brigade (that was subsequently deployed to the Mediterranean).


< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/21/2008 1:23:20 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 43
RE: Directive 21 - 10/21/2008 3:53:56 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		The attached screenshot is my interpretation of what Regiment General Goring should look like. Notice the unit proficiency of 85%. This takes me to the next 'larger issue' -- unit proficiencies.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 44
RE: Directive 21 - 10/21/2008 4:53:04 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		German unit proficiencies. The following unit proficiencies apply to German (and probably Finnish) unit proficiencies. These are my interpretations of history applied to the ‘historical simulation’ of Directive 21:

60% = Inferior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
65% = Poor (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
70% = Fair (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
75% = Average (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
80% = Good (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
85% = Excellent (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
90% = Superior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)

I think 1942 is pretty close to 1941 in terms of quality. 1943 is not as good as 1941 in terms of overall quality, although the very best German formations are still pretty close to 1941 quality. 1944 is not as good as 1943, and even the very best German formations are starting to show a decline in quality. 1945 is not as good as 1944, and even the very best German formations are noticeably below 1941 quality. What does this mean? For units in combat from 1941 not much. But for newly-formed units entering the game as reinforcements, the date of entry should have a definite impact on their unit proficiencies.

The size of a formation should also have an impact on its proficiency. It is easier to maintain a small formation at a high level of quality than a large one. This should be self-evident. As far as divisions go, I would rate only three divisions in the entire German Armed Forces as 90%: 1st Fallschirmjager (7th Flieger Division also counts because it was the core of 1st Fallschirmjager), Panzer Lehr (until it was destroyed in Normandy), and Grossdeutschland.

In terms of Directive 21, the only ground units I would rate as 90% proficiency are the Brandenburger commando battalions, 7th Flieger Division, and Grossdeutschland. [As an aside, I have no major complaints regarding rating the Luftwaffe air units as 90% because of the way the air system works, which is very different from the ground system.]

Why don’t I rate any Waffen-SS units as 90%? I will explain that in another ‘larger issue’ yet to come.

Anyway, I think that a large number of German units need to be re-examined in terms of their unit proficiencies. And, in most cases, these re-examined units should have their proficiencies reduced, especially newly-formed units later in the game arriving as reinforcements (the ‘100 series’ panzer brigades in 1944 immediately spring to mind).


_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 45
RE: Directive 21 - 10/22/2008 12:11:58 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

German unit proficiencies. The following unit proficiencies apply to German (and probably Finnish) unit proficiencies. These are my interpretations of history applied to the ‘historical simulation’ of Directive 21:

60% = Inferior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
65% = Poor (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
70% = Fair (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
75% = Average (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
80% = Good (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
85% = Excellent (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)
90% = Superior (in terms of 1941 German combat standards)

I think 1942 is pretty close to 1941 in terms of quality. 1943 is not as good as 1941 in terms of overall quality, although the very best German formations are still pretty close to 1941 quality. 1944 is not as good as 1943, and even the very best German formations are starting to show a decline in quality. 1945 is not as good as 1944, and even the very best German formations are noticeably below 1941 quality. What does this mean? For units in combat from 1941 not much. But for newly-formed units entering the game as reinforcements, the date of entry should have a definite impact on their unit proficiencies.

The size of a formation should also have an impact on its proficiency. It is easier to maintain a small formation at a high level of quality than a large one. This should be self-evident. As far as divisions go, I would rate only three divisions in the entire German Armed Forces as 90%: 1st Fallschirmjager (7th Flieger Division also counts because it was the core of 1st Fallschirmjager), Panzer Lehr (until it was destroyed in Normandy), and Grossdeutschland.

In terms of Directive 21, the only ground units I would rate as 90% proficiency are the Brandenburger commando battalions, 7th Flieger Division, and Grossdeutschland. [As an aside, I have no major complaints regarding rating the Luftwaffe air units as 90% because of the way the air system works, which is very different from the ground system.]

Why don’t I rate any Waffen-SS units as 90%? I will explain that in another ‘larger issue’ yet to come.

Anyway, I think that a large number of German units need to be re-examined in terms of their unit proficiencies. And, in most cases, these re-examined units should have their proficiencies reduced, especially newly-formed units later in the game arriving as reinforcements (the ‘100 series’ panzer brigades in 1944 immediately spring to mind).



Things have changed with OPART III -- but one used to get ferocious turn-burn with any unit rated at above about 85% proficiency. If a unit was at or reached 90% or so, it became offensively unusable -- not unless you were prepared to see your turn end the minute it attacked.

Something to bear in mind. As with beer, more proficiency is not invariably better.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 46
RE: Directive 21 - 10/22/2008 12:23:47 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Colin,

Directive 21 sets the MRPB to 3 to handle turn burn.  Further, Directive 21 has dozens of ground units at 90%.  I'm saying that that is not historically accurate.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 47
RE: Directive 21 - 10/22/2008 4:41:29 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I agree that there should be a fourth 'recon' KG. The number of available equipment slots in each unit prevented me from doing this. The alternative of making four unbalanced KG's may work from an historical unit arrangement perspective, but it doesn't work in the historical simulation of the scenario. By that I mean that the historical KG's were organised as stated, but then they could be altered depending on the situation. Later in the scenario when faced with being attacked by numbers of division sized units, the four KG arrangement would leave the two weaker KG's very vulnerable, and perhaps even a burden.



Well, I've done some more examination of the panzer-division regimental kampfgruppen, and I'm convinced that something needs to be done to change the way these kampfgruppen are depicted in Directive 21. Instead of being 'balanced', the divisional KGs are identical.

If the divisional KGs are going to be identical, then the division might as well be represented as a division (like the infantry divisions are) and let the players divide their divisions (or not) as they see fit into brigades or regiments. Indeed, I like this idea much better than having identical individual regimental KGs that cannot be combined into a single powerful unit.

As it stands now in Directive 21 (Rev-1), having the division already broken down into identical regimental KGs makes the division much less powerful, and, thus, not historically accurate in terms of representing the German 'Armored Fist'.


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 48
RE: Directive 21 - 10/22/2008 7:43:25 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

If a unit was at or reached 90% or so, it became offensively unusable


Thanks Colin,

I remembered a discussion about this some time ago, so we did change the 90% units to 80%. With the MRPB at 3, 90% units might still restrict a turn to 3 rounds. This is ok, but we don't want it caused solely by unit proficiency.

Victor, we are keeping track of the playtesters opinions concerning the playability aspect of KG's compared to combined PzDiv's. So far it is overwhelmingly in favor of KG's.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 49
RE: Directive 21 - 10/22/2008 9:47:37 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

Directive 21 sets the MRPB to 3 to handle turn burn.  Further, Directive 21 has dozens of ground units at 90%.  I'm saying that that is not historically accurate.


Well, proficiency is relative -- and it's not a moral judgement. As far as 'historical accuracy' goes, it's only one of a number of elements that together contribute to unit value.

For example, to get an effect, I might make Japanese units very high proficiency -- but with 'assault recon teams' or something. I want them to take heavy losses. High proficiency coupled with easily destroyed weapons is one way of making that happen -- since the units won't break off combat. The proficiency rating doesn't mean I necessarily have a high opinion of the Japanese army.

It's all about tweaking and balancing to get the effect you want. In Seelowe I set all British proficiencies about 10 points higher than I might otherwise -- but the British have 90% shock and other disabilities. So I wind up with about the combat power I want -- but have a force and formations that are highly vulnerable to early turn ending, going into reorganization, and otherwise simulating that inimitable British tendency to just sit there.

The converse could be done just as easily. You might rate the actual combat ability of German troops as not all that much higher than that of the Russians in a Stalingrad-type setting, so set everyone at 60-70% -- but really go after the shock, formation proficiencies, and force proficiencies.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/22/2008 10:04:01 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 50
RE: Directive 21 - 10/23/2008 2:38:55 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Victor, we are keeping track of the playtesters opinions concerning the playability aspect of KG's compared to combined PzDiv's. So far it is overwhelmingly in favor of KG's.


Okay. But why name one KG 'panzer' and the other two KGs 'motorized' when they are all three identical? They should all be the same (which should be 'panzergrendier').

It is disingenuous to label one KG as 'panzer' and the other two KGs as 'motorized' because players will use the military symbols on the counters when making tactical decisions, and this would lead players to make potentially unsound choices. They don't realize (I certainly didn't until I dug deeper) that all three KGs are identical.

And there is a reason that the playtesters are overwhelmingly in favor of KGs instead of combining them into their divisions -- habit. It is a holdover from FitE and players are used to playing FitE. But Directive 21 is not FitE. It plays differently. All I'm saying is that just because players are used to doing things a certain way, it shouldn't mean that other ways of doing things should not be explored. Here is a suggestion. You can perform several playtests in parallel. Have some playtests with Directive 21 as it currently exists. Have other playtests with a version of Directive 21 that has the KGs combined into their divisions.

Here is another concern why I'm not a fan of the regimental KGs for the panzer divisions (besides the fact that they are identical) -- ants. We all know how to abuse ants. Perhaps this is another reason why playtesters like the regimental KGs. It gives them more ants, and, thus, more ways to abuse the game system.

Further, there already exists a panzer division in Directive 21 that is organized similar to(but not quite) what I'm suggesting -- the Hermann Goring Panzer Division. That division is different from every other panzer division currently in Directive 21. And if we can have one division like that, then why not the others?


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 51
RE: Directive 21 - 10/23/2008 6:55:14 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, proficiency is relative -- and it's not a moral judgement. As far as 'historical accuracy' goes, it's only one of a number of elements that together contribute to unit value.

. . .



I'm not making moral judgments. I'm talking about actual German proficiencies in Directive 21. The vast majority of German units in Directive 21 have a proficiency of 80%. That seems to be the generic standard for German units. So, I'm talking about what actually exists. Have you actually looked at Directive 21?

In my original post on this issue (EDIT: post #44), I rate a 1941 German proficiency of 80% as 'Good'. sPzAbt653 has mentioned 'historical simulation' as a design goal. I agree with this in theory. However, which units 'should' vary from the generic standard of 80% is the content of what I want to discuss.

80% is the proficiency of the standard German combat unit in 1941. This is a fact in Directive 21. And I'm not interested in changing that fact. So, the questions become: If 80% is the standard by which all other German units are compared, then (A) which units should vary from the 80% standard?, and (B) why? Those are the questions to be answered. I've raised this as one of my 'larger issues' because I believe that the answers to (A) and (B) are important.

Setting the MRPB to 3 means that high proficiencies will not cause turn burn. I have no problem with that. In fact, I like it like that. So, we return to questions (A) and (B).

I personally think that too many German ground units have been given proficiencies of 90% in Directive 21 (which is one reason, among several, that I called this a 'larger issue'). I would like to see that number drastically cut to only a handful of units (i.e., the Brandenburger commandos, 7th Flieger Division, and Grossdeutschland).

If we are on the same page now, then I'd like to move on to actually answering (A) and (B).

< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/23/2008 7:00:14 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 52
RE: Directive 21 - 10/23/2008 9:21:03 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Have some playtests with Directive 21 as it currently exists. Have other playtests with a version of Directive 21 that has the KGs combined into their divisions.


That's been done from the start, with LAH, DAS, TOT and WIK all using the combined configuration.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 53
RE: Directive 21 - 10/23/2008 9:31:03 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Have some playtests with Directive 21 as it currently exists. Have other playtests with a version of Directive 21 that has the KGs combined into their divisions.


That's been done from the start, with LAH, DAS, TOT and WIK all using the combined configuration.


Yes. I like that a lot! Now, if only we can do the same with the rest of the mobile divisions (plus the rest of the SS divisions, plus the security divisions), then everything would be consistent. [And I would sing your praises, too.]


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 54
RE: Directive 21 - 10/24/2008 2:13:05 AM   
OTZ

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		How does one acquire this mod?

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 55
RE: Directive 21 - 10/24/2008 3:25:56 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		After some additional research, Regiment General Goring was withdrawn from the Eastern Front at the end of November, 1941 (never to return).  I think that corresponds to Turn 46 or so in terms of Directive 21.

[As an aside, the schutzen battalion was sent to act as a temporary garrison at Ploesti, but, for the purposes of Directive 21, it's probably easiest to just withdraw the entire regiment.]

_____________________________


(in reply to OTZ)
Post #: 56
RE: Directive 21 - 10/24/2008 6:49:23 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Regiment General Goring was withdrawn from the Eastern Front at the end of November, 1941


After leaving most of the heavy AAA assets back at the airfields and HQ's that they were defending, what we ended up with is this, the reinforced battalion that was sent to the front. It withdraws on turn 45 to go to France, North Africa and Italy where it evolves into a full division, and appears late in the scenario after it was transferred from Italy.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 57
RE: Directive 21 - 10/24/2008 12:47:06 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Regiment General Goring was withdrawn from the Eastern Front at the end of November, 1941


After leaving most of the heavy AAA assets back at the airfields and HQ's that they were defending, what we ended up with is this, the reinforced battalion that was sent to the front.



I'm confused. The following was taken from the Wikipedia:

During the invasion of Poland, only a small part of the regiment was involved in the fighting. The majority of the unit was to stay in Berlin to continue their duties providing flak protection and guards for Göring and the NSDAP leadership. During Operation Weserübung, elements of the regiment (a guard battalion, a motorcycle company and a flak component) took part in the campaign and acquitted themselves well.

After the capitulation of the Netherlands, the regiment was broken up into several small kampfgruppes and these were attached to the panzer divisions spearheading the advance. The regiment again acquitted itself well, especially the flak troops, who often operated in an anti-armour capacity. In an engagement at Mormal Wood, heavy 8.8 cm FlaK 18s engaged French tanks at ranges of only a few yards. During this battle, the regiment gained a reputation for steadfastness under fire.

Barbarossa got underway on 22 June 1941, and during the campaign, the regiment was attached to the 11.Panzer-Division, a part of Army Group South. The regiment saw action around the areas of Radziechow, Kiev and Brjansk, again proving its worth and destroying many Soviet tanks with their 8.8 cm flak guns. At the end of 1941, the regiment was returned to Germany for rest and refit, having suffered moderate casualties in the campaign. The Schützen-Bataillon Hermann Göring remained at the front until May 1942.

The point of all this is that the Regiment General Goring did not leave its heavy 88s behind when it invaded the USSR. It used those 88s in front-line combat (just like it did in France a year earlier). EDIT: Note also that the Wikipedia stated that the whole regiment (not pieces or kampfgruppes of the regiment like Poland and France before) saw action at Kiev and Bryansk, etc.

EDIT2: This is not that big a deal. I'm far more concerned about larger issues.



< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/24/2008 2:51:15 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 58
RE: Directive 21 - 10/25/2008 5:05:35 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		After some playtest experimentation, I think that setting the environment to 'Occasional Precipitation' works best.  I used to think that 'No Precipitation' was best, but I no longer believe that.

EDIT: Every now and again you will have to reload to get good weather on 22 June 41 when using 'Occasional Precipitation', but not very often. I've come to the conclusion that having a few rainclouds is more realistic than none at all. So, now I advocate 'Occasional Precipitation' instead of 'No Precipitation'.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 10/25/2008 5:24:46 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 59
RE: Directive 21 - 10/25/2008 6:37:27 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

After some playtest experimentation, I think that setting the environment to 'Occasional Precipitation' works best.  I used to think that 'No Precipitation' was best, but I no longer believe that.

EDIT: Every now and again you will have to reload to get good weather on 22 June 41 when using 'Occasional Precipitation', but not very often. I've come to the conclusion that having a few rainclouds is more realistic than none at all. So, now I advocate 'Occasional Precipitation' instead of 'No Precipitation'.


I get about 10% cloud cover even with 'no precipitation.'

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Directive 21 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.766