Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII?

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] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII? - 10/15/2020 7:08:13 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

I see that the manual recommends leaving the Force Communications Level at 100% for WWII scenarios, but it seems like the effects of reducing the FCL (to 90? 80?) might be an interesting way to, say, reduce Soviet artillery, air, and general attack capabilities 1941.

Have any scenarios tried this approach? If so, what the consensus on how it turned out?

Post #: 1

RE: Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII? - 10/15/2020 9:40:13 PM

TheeWarLord

Posts: 94
Joined: 11/17/2017
Status: offline

An interesting observation. It would also be applicable to France 1940, where the French tank units didn't have tank to tank commo and relied on flags to communicate between tanks and motorized vehicles. Could this be an event where the FCL coukd increase to reflect improvement in communications later in the war?

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 2

RE: Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII? - 10/15/2020 10:33:17 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

IIRC there is no event to increase the FCL, so presumably if you tweak it, it would be for particular campaigns rather than long-term scenarios.

(in reply to TheeWarLord)

Post #: 3

RE: Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII? - 10/17/2020 12:32:24 AM

sPzAbt653

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

I've never tinkered with this setting, not saying I think it is right or wrong but only because:

The 100% value should be retained for most World War II and later Scenarios. During the World War I period, a value of 75% is recommended for Scenarios. Prior to 1900, values of 50% or lower are appropriate. This characteristic is only visible in the Editor or the Expanded Situation Report.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 4

RE: Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII? - 10/17/2020 1:05:20 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

Yeah, I've seen that and it's probably a good general rule, but not sure that it should always apply in every WWII scenario. For instance, Soviet offensive and defensive artillery support was not especially effective in the early days of WWII, which seems to one of the effects of a lower FCL. A lower FCL also increases the chances of a formation reorganizing, which might be an interesting way to reflect Soviet difficulties in coordinating attacks in that period.

I'd like to test it out, but with all of the various factors (generally lower Soviet proficiency, supply, combat factors, etc) I'm not sure how easy it would be to parse out the effect of reducing the FCL vs the other factors. Testing it in isolation by setting everything else the same would also seem to lead to inconclusive results, so dunno. When I get a chance I'll try to give it a spin, but I was hoping that someone else had already done so!

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 5

RE: Tweaking Force Communications Level in WWII? - 10/17/2020 2:35:25 PM

sPzAbt653

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

For East Front scenarios that span the war, we can edit the eqp to include 'early war' Soviet artillery pieces and 1942+ artillery pieces and then design units accordingly. Early artillery would have less AP and their units less transport. An FCL Setting would be easier, but that would be for the entire scenario. Plus, as you said, testing might prove difficult as results may not be readily observed, although there are some here who are good at deciphering the TOAW Logs.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 6