Question about Soviet Corps formations

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question about Soviet Corps formations

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Question about Soviet Corps formations

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/23/2012 6:14:23 PM

traemyn

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

I was reading through Colossus Reborn (Glantz) about Artillery Corps and this brought a few questions to mind:

1. Why doesn't the Soviet player get to make Artillery Corps? And if they did.. would they represented with a separate HQ, or would the Artillery Divisions combine into 1 Corps? See question #2..

2. The Soviet player starts out with 'separated' representations (with HQ's) of Cavalry Corps, Mechanized Corps, and Rifle Corps. What is the reasoning behind the decision to represent these Corps in this way at the start of the game versus later?

Just curious if these decisions were based on of how the early war formations were used, or if its based on the early CC problems, etc..

Thanks!

Post #: 1

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/23/2012 7:00:58 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

1. I think Artillery Corps HQs should be provided in the game, and should probably be represented as separate HQs, much like the Airborne Corps HQs. Maybe for WitE 2.0...

2. Later war Soviet Corps are mostly division sized formations (Tank and Mech Corps being composed of Brigades and a 'Corps' in name only, and Cav, although Cav Corps were formed from small 'Divisions' which were really Regiments in strength), and the late war Rifle Corps was kind of in between a Division and Corps sized formation. The difference between early and late war 'Corps' is that the early Corps were actual levels of command with HQs, composed of full Divisions, etc. Due to massive losses (and Stalin's purges) the lack of trained officers and staffs resulted in this level of command essentially being eliminated from the Russian army in 1941 until Rifle Corps started showing up again in late 1942/early 1943, but even then late war Rifle Corps weren't quite on the same level as what we would think of as a 'Corps' in western armies.

(in reply to traemyn)

Post #: 2

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/23/2012 10:50:26 PM

traemyn

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

...resulted in this level of command essentially being eliminated from the Russian army in 1941 until Rifle Corps started showing up again in late 1942/early 1943, but even then late war Rifle Corps weren't quite on the same level as what we would think of as a 'Corps' in western armies.

Are you saying the later Rifle Corps had similar HQ structure to the early Rifle Corps? If so, why are the later Rifle Corps represented differently on-map? (i.e. all as one unit)

For the second part about western armies, could you elaborate?

Thanks!

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 3

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 1:10:45 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: traemyn

I was reading through Colossus Reborn (Glantz) about Artillery Corps and this brought a few questions to mind:

1. Why doesn't the Soviet player get to make Artillery Corps? And if they did.. would they represented with a separate HQ, or would the Artillery Divisions combine into 1 Corps? See question #2..

2. The Soviet player starts out with 'separated' representations (with HQ's) of Cavalry Corps, Mechanized Corps, and Rifle Corps. What is the reasoning behind the decision to represent these Corps in this way at the start of the game versus later?

Just curious if these decisions were based on of how the early war formations were used, or if its based on the early CC problems, etc..

Thanks!

1. Historically Artillery Corps where created to co-ordinate the operations of artillery divisions/brigades attached to them. Since this function can be performed adequately by army and front HQs, creating a separate HQ for artillery divisions would have been superfluous and unnecessary in game terms.

2. The Soviet corps level HQs are removed from the game to reflect the enormous losses in command personnel and other specialist at the beginning of Barbarossa. To employ the surviving personnel as efficiently as possible these corps HQs were disbanded and the personnel were used at army and higher command levels. The rifle and cavalry corps size combat units that can be created later in the game are a design feature to allow the Soviet player to concentrate his forces in historical densities that are otherwise not possible within the three unit per hex stacking restriction.

(in reply to traemyn)

Post #: 4

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 4:09:34 PM

traemyn

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Good info, thanks guys!

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 5

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 5:21:11 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: traemyn
For the second part about western armies, could you elaborate?

In the sense that the later war Rifle Corps didn't quite have the level of administrative and logistical support that one finds at the Corps level in western armies. The Russian Army HQ was still the primary higher HQ for Rifle Divisions to operate under. The Divisions may have been grouped into Corps within the Army, but the Army HQ was still the primary logistical and administrative authority above the Division level. Additionally, considering that Rifle Divisions were consistently understrength, a Rifle Corps of 3 Divisions was sometimes little more than the equivalent of a (fulls strength) western infantry Division in size and strength. In other words, the Rifle Corps was the equivalent of a glorified and reinforced western infantry Division, with a more senior commander.

In western armies, the Corps HQ was the primary logistical and administrative authority above the Division, and operated at an operational level. The late war Rifle Corps still operated more on a tactical level.

(in reply to traemyn)

Post #: 6

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 5:27:42 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
1. Historically Artillery Corps where created to co-ordinate the operations of artillery divisions/brigades attached to them. Since this function can be performed adequately by army and front HQs, creating a separate HQ for artillery divisions would have been superfluous and unnecessary in game terms.

Couldn't the Airborne Corps HQ be similarly considered as superfluous? Interestingly, some players have been grouping Artillery Divisions using the Airborne Corps HQs, as a way of maximizing C&C capacities...

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 7

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 6:06:23 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
1. Historically Artillery Corps where created to co-ordinate the operations of artillery divisions/brigades attached to them. Since this function can be performed adequately by army and front HQs, creating a separate HQ for artillery divisions would have been superfluous and unnecessary in game terms.

Couldn't the Airborne Corps HQ be similarly considered as superfluous? Interestingly, some players have been grouping Artillery Divisions using the Airborne Corps HQs, as a way of maximizing C&C capacities...

The short answer is that the Airborne Corps HQs were retained because the Soviets retained them. They should probably have been coded to accept only airborne units as attachments. We'll have to keep such a restriction on the list for possible inclusion in WitE 2.0.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 8

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 7:11:47 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Give us back real Armies with real command abilities and we won't need to use airborne HQs as ghetto HQs.

For example, let's take 11. Guards Army in June of 1943: 3 rifle corps, two tank corps, four tank brigades, and four artillery divisions. Total command value: 32. Total capacity: 18. Poor Bagramyan will be tripping all over himself with our new and not improved HQ limits. There's plenty of other such examples. Not every army was generically built with 4 corps in mind. The Soviets could and did make oversized armies for special duties and put them under first class commanders.

We have entire Fronts that don't really fit into the new command scheme. (1. Ukrainian says hi.)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 9

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 7:28:55 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Give us back real Armies with real command abilities and we won't need to use airborne HQs as ghetto HQs.

For example, let's take 11. Guards Army in June of 1943: 3 rifle corps, two tank corps, four tank brigades, and four artillery divisions. Total command value: 32. Total capacity: 18. Poor Bagramyan will be tripping all over himself with our new and not improved HQ limits. There's plenty of other such examples. Not every army was generically built with 4 corps in mind. The Soviets could and did make oversized armies for special duties and put them under first class commanders.

We have entire Fronts that don't really fit into the new command scheme. (1. Ukrainian says hi.)

Is there an online petition we can sign? call Joel back from Bermuda and to make a poll?

/wave 1. Ukrainian,

Rasmus

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 10

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 7:35:15 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I raised all these points already to Joel and was vetoed. This is the way it is going to be until WITE 2.0.

All I was able to do was prevent the command limits from being lowered even more than 18. The first idea was to make them all 16.

All you have to do is pull up an OB of the 43 or 44 scenario to see how badly out of whack things are now. Large chunks of the Red Army are over their command limits.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 11

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 7:38:08 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Give us back real Armies with real command abilities and we won't need to use airborne HQs as ghetto HQs.

For example, let's take 11. Guards Army in June of 1943: 3 rifle corps, two tank corps, four tank brigades, and four artillery divisions. Total command value: 32. Total capacity: 18. Poor Bagramyan will be tripping all over himself with our new and not improved HQ limits. There's plenty of other such examples. Not every army was generically built with 4 corps in mind. The Soviets could and did make oversized armies for special duties and put them under first class commanders.

We have entire Fronts that don't really fit into the new command scheme. (1. Ukrainian says hi.)

That, and there's also 10-15 (non-tank) Army HQs missing from the historical reinforcement schedule that should arrive in (mostly) 42-43. Mind you, some other Army HQs were historically disbanded and this isn't reflected in the game so it sort of balances out, but the Russians should probably still have those additional historical Army HQs in 42-43.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 12

RE: Question about Soviet Corps formations - 7/24/2012 7:46:35 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Meh, the reinforcement schedule gives you around 60 armies at the end of the day, if you include the 5 shock armies. That's about what it should be.

The problem is the new command limits forces all the armies to be the same. This just wasn't how it worked in real life.

Instead of the useless +1 admin bonus to shock and guards armies, I would have raised their command cap to account for supersized armies. By a lot.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 7/24/2012 7:48:56 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 13