Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I've been messing around with the tutorial, How do you unattach support units from HQ units, putting them back into a general pool of support units?  Or is this not possible in the tutorial?

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

I was surprised too about that restriction at first. I thought: "Wait, we have powerful computers to instantly calculate troop and equipement densities and here we resort to this simplicistic boardgame-like stacking rule?".
But, after examining the rules about Soviet Corps' formation and trying how stacking actually works in the tutorial, I realized that it was a simple yet elegant solution to the actual problem on how to represent doctrinal limitations and historical unit frontages.

Let's consider soviet Rifle Divisions, just for example.
In 1941 a Soviet Rifle Division was expected to defend a sector of 14-20km deployed in a single echelon (I'm quoting figures from "Soviet Military Operational Art - In pursuit of Deep Battle" by col. D. Glantz) while attacked in sectors 5-6km wide. Considering that a game hex is 16km (10 miles) wide, the aforementioned figures mean one Rifle Division per hex in defense and three Rifle Divisions per hex in attack. Game staking works.
But it's not the end of the story. Starting from 1942 Soviet Rifle Divisions attack frontages began to shrink. From the 5-6km of 1941 and 3-4km in 1942 to 1.5-2km in 1945! That means that by the end of the war, the Red Army typically massed while attacking, in a given sector, three times the riflemen it was able (due to training and doctrine) to mass at the start of Barbarossa. In the game you can do too this consolidating three Rifle Divisions into a single Corps, and this without changing the basic stacking rules. The additional benefit is that it is impossible, for the Soviet player, to use hindsight and force its unit to use tactics they were simply not taught or trained to in 1941. The same thing could, more or less, be said for mechanized formations.

Summing up, in my opinion, this is probably the best solution to the density problem, given the constraint of an hex&counter type wargame.

quote:

Random question - playing the Leningrad scenario and I just thought whilst taking all the little town's that have a Manpower rating of 1. I thought "I assume that by taking them it will have a tiny impact on the soviet replacements"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tzar007

Thanks Amateucci for these details. I must admit like others that I was really puzzled at the stacking rule. I was thinking: heck, if you can stack up 90,000 Soviet soldiers in the space represented by a hex if they are into 3 Corps, why can't you stack 9 divisions also totalling 90,000 soldiers ? Same amount of soldiers, same space available, no ? So my first reaction was, what's the point or purpose of that rule ?

But the historical details you bring forward shed a different perspective on this. It's even more true when the game actually restricts the formation of various types of corps to specific dates (for example, rifle corps not available before June 1942). So now at least there seems to be a basic historical reality to justify this rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

tio

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tzar007

Thanks Amateucci for these details. I must admit like others that I was really puzzled at the stacking rule. I was thinking: heck, if you can stack up 90,000 Soviet soldiers in the space represented by a hex if they are into 3 Corps, why can't you stack 9 divisions also totalling 90,000 soldiers ? Same amount of soldiers, same space available, no ? So my first reaction was, what's the point or purpose of that rule ?

But the historical details you bring forward shed a different perspective on this. It's even more true when the game actually restricts the formation of various types of corps to specific dates (for example, rifle corps not available before June 1942). So now at least there seems to be a basic historical reality to justify this rule.

And there's also another subtlety. When attacking with Rifle forces to create a breakthrough, the Red Army used small armour formations to support infantry forces without having to use the larger units (Tank or Mechanized Corps) that were reserved for exploitation. In 1942 these support formations were typically separate tank brigades while, later in the war, they were separate tank regiments. While there was little difference between a brigade and a regiment in reality, in game terms these units behave very diffenently since brigades have a counter while tank regiment can be attached directly to combat units. This means that if I want to support a Rifle Corps attack in 1942 with a Tank Brigade I will end up with two Rifle Corps and one Tank Brigade in one hex, while, if I want to support a Rifle Corps attack in, say, 1944 with an Independent Tank Regiment I won't have to reserve further stacking space for tank formations thus allowing for three Rifle Corps in a single hex. This means that, with the same stacking rule (three counters per hex), I am still able to recreate the changing historical frontages, troop densities and depth of echelonment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Another option is to put units in reserve behind the attacking units and they may join into the attack. This works best for motorized units, so something to consider doing with extra tank brigades.

quote:

Do factories located in cities that are completely isolated (e.g. Stalingrad) continue to produce supplies, manpower and goodies?