quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Indeed the equipment transition is tricky and I guess it will have to be tweaked again and again till its OK but that's the reason I suggest to use the really dates and production figures as starting point and from there you can move in the direction that is needed.

I would suggest to only withdraw Pz regiments and replace them with new ones if absolute necessary because the performance up to that point is erased because even if the old equipment lands in the pool the tank inventory of the new units will sometimes vary strongly from the old unit so you get a unit that is maybe much stronger or weaker than the one it replaces, as stated this is a disconnection to the performance the player made before and very unrealistic to a unit that stays on the frontline.
I only see that really necessary in April 43 when the basic layout of the Panzer units changes from PIII to PIV as main tank or of course if the unit moved out of the theater for a long time like the 6th & 7th Pz divisions(the 10th moved to Africa and was wiped out there)did.

BTW is there a reason not to move the starting date to the 2nd October when the rest of HG Mitte starts the offensive?(Besides Panzergruppe 2 starting already on the 30th September but you see its position on 1.10.41 in the evening so positioning them shouldn't be a problem).
I also thought about moving the starting date to a sooner date but with the half-week turns it just doesn't fit because the PG 2 has either 1 or even 2 days to much(not sure if the first turn covers 4 or 3 days) when getting the date in-line with the 2nd October when the rest attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PRUSSIAN TOM

Excellent scenario, even if a regiment or two had the Panzer II or IV with the short caliber. I kind of LIKED getting to start on Sept. 30. If we are going to refight the battle (which was a strategic mistake due to the time wasted around Smolensk (deciding to go to Kiev or Moscow...the General Staff should really take the rap for that, not Hitler. They wasted more time argueing with him than the 3 or 4 day you give us).

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Not unreasonable given that, historically, the pz regiments were hollow shells by midwinter 42 and so not doing much on the front line.

quote:

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.

quote:

...the rail artillery units should be erased...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.

I think the 50mm's were available in numbers by the time of this scenario and the 75mm's didn't arrive until late '42. I didn't find anything specific other than the general info that can be found on Wiki, and some production stats:

50mm PAK 38, 1940 - 388, 1941 - 2072, 1942 - 4480, 1943 - 2626.
75mm PAK 97/38, 1942 - 2845, 1943 - 858.
75mm PAK 40, 1942 - 2114, 1943 - 8740, 1944 - 11728, 1945 - 721.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Regarding the Pz division layouts, should they start with the amount of "Abteilungen" they had in 1941?
If so than:
-3. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung
-6. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung(has already a third coming in April 42 but it had a third right from the start of Barbarossa and lost its 3rd in 42)
-7. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung(has already a third coming in April 42 but it had a third right from the start of Barbarossa and lost its 3rd in 42)
-10. PzD moves out of theater in May 1942 so a 3rd Abteilung isn't needed but comes in April 42, or do you want to keep it in Russia?
-18. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung
-20. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung


Another idea:
As far as I see the HG Nord keeps the 12th and 8th with a TO for the 8th to be send to HG Mitte, but the HG Süd keeps 13th, 14th, 16th and gets 22nd & 23rd in early 42 what seems a lot, sure HG Süd frontline is twice as long if not longer than what HG Nord had to cover and it has better tank terrain but the Russian winter offensive was more serious & successful at HG Nord than at HG Süd so overall I would advise to sent the 22nd & 23rd to the HG Mitte and scrap the TO for getting the 8th PzD & 18th mot. ID. because pulling those 2 out in any phase of the game(they had already given the Panzergruppe 4 to HG Mitte and at the time of the Soviet winter offensive or after it with the seriously disrupted frontline they need those units badly)could have serious impact on HG Nord.

I checked the HG Süd a bit and I think they can handle it without the 22nd & 23rd PzD, the Kerch reconquering was mainly achieved because of the incompetence of the Soviets so no real need for the 22nd PzD, after that with Sevastopol set to a simple siege enough forces should be free to hold/stop any Soviet offensive out the the Charkov frontline arc so the 23rd PzD isn't needed there too, I guess even destroying the Charkov arc would be possible later in the year. Finally there is a chance to minimize the use of German IDs in the south by forcing the German Allies to move more stuff to the south(as they did).

So some more IDs from the south could be set up to come in by TO maybe 5-6(btw the 239. ID was disband on 1.1.42 so another ID should be used) from HG Süd and the IDs of HG Nord should cost twice as much as those from HG Süd so the player takes them only if very badly needed.


Regarding the 10th PzD I think it's even more reasonable for it to move to Africa because the offensive to the Caucasus doesn't happen and so the Allied focus in the Middle East stays at the Africa front. I think Daniel McBride is incorporating Allied units for his "Drang nach Asien 1942 - The Last Blitzkrieg" scenario but I'm not sure if the allies really moved some stuff there.


And finally the rail artillery units should be erased, I think they would now be even more useful/needed at Leningrad and/or Sevastopol, especially as the use in TOAW is very unrealistic, I read that it took 5 weeks to setup fire position for "Dora" near Sevastopol but in TOAW it is very easy & fast, also the railnetwork that has to be converted may not even be able to really support it terms of weight but also in terms if support as it took a lot of transport room to supply the gun, Thor & Odin can be handle easier but nonetheless I think they should be removed too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

...the rail artillery units should be erased...

Just for arguments sake, the Axis did have a good number of other seige artillery that could have been left at Sevastopol and Leningrad while the big guns, for propaganda and moral, are moved to the Moscow front. But in the scenario they maybe should have the heavy artillery icon instead of the rail icon, and no transport assets. That way they are limited in movement and rate of fire, as historically they were difficult to relocate and the number of shells were limited.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.

I think the 50mm's were available in numbers by the time of this scenario and the 75mm's didn't arrive until late '42. I didn't find anything specific other than the general info that can be found on Wiki, and some production stats:

50mm PAK 38, 1940 - 388, 1941 - 2072, 1942 - 4480, 1943 - 2626.
75mm PAK 97/38, 1942 - 2845, 1943 - 858.
75mm PAK 40, 1942 - 2114, 1943 - 8740, 1944 - 11728, 1945 - 721.

"The new 50mm antitank gun, intended to replace the woefully inadequate 37mm, had begun to come off the assembly line in greater numbers but was still the exception in ordinary German infantry units." To the Gates of Stalingrad, Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942", David M. Glantz with Jonathan M. House.

That was in spring 1942. The scenario begins in October 1941. Unfortunately it would force a transition.

Also, would be fun to see the lend lease tanks. [:)] (But then again, more transitions.)

We need a better way to transition equipment. [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Do you have any info on which Soviet units used the lend-lease tanks and in what numbers? As I note above I think the Soviets need to be buttressed a bit in this scenario and I'm on the hunt to add some historically plausible capability to the Red Army. A couple of Soviet tank brigades with British and U.S. tanks would be fun to include to see how they do (the Soviets have some hurricanes and American fighters in the current build).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Do you have any info on which Soviet units used the lend-lease tanks and in what numbers? As I note above I think the Soviets need to be buttressed a bit in this scenario and I'm on the hunt to add some historically plausible capability to the Red Army. A couple of Soviet tank brigades with British and U.S. tanks would be fun to include to see how they do (the Soviets have some hurricanes and American fighters in the current build).

If you are ok with Charles Sharp's "Soviet Order of Battle WW2" I can give you some numbers. It's in Volume 12, "Red Hammers, Soviet Self-Propelled Artillery and Lend Lease Armor 41-45".

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Sure thing -- most useful info is: number of Soviet army; unit name & size (typically a tank brigade); key elements of TO&E; date the unit arrives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Sure thing -- most useful info is: number of Soviet army; unit name & size (typically a tank brigade); key elements of TO&E; date the unit arrives

Ok, there will be two tank corp, one mechanized corp and a plethora of separate brigades (36+?) equiped partially or entirely with Matildas, Valentines, Lees, Grants and, interestingly, Matildas that the Soviets had equiped with the 76.2mm tank cannon. The Germans called it Matilda MKIIe.

quote:

"The new 50mm antitank gun, intended to replace the woefully inadequate 37mm, had begun to come off the assembly line in greater numbers but was still the exception in ordinary German infantry units."

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
8th: it does seem clear from the literature that 8-pz was slated to be redeployed to AGC and then was held back to deal with the pressure on AGN to which you refer. Thus the victory point penalty for deploying it. I think this is accurate chrome. But I like the idea of adding the 22-pz and 23-pz as additional theater option redeployments (perhaps with a slightly lighter VP penalty?) as a further game-balancing measure and to give the scenario more variability and more options.

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
10th: arguably a determined Moscow-first strategy would have kept this unit in theater. Maybe the thing to do is charge a VP penalty for NOT withdrawing it -- and leave it up to the player through another theater option (say, a 5VP penalty for not withdrawing it -- "Rommel is very disappointed"). There is a similar issue with the luftwaffe which diverted a fair bit of its Russian front strength to the med during some of this scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Artillery: it's kind of the same case here. A truly determined Moscow-first strategy means less priority on both Leningrad and Sevastopol. The proposal below to change the unit symbol and to make these units much more ponderous might fit. Again they could go into the "reserve" pool and perhaps be available in return for a small VP penalty, to charge the Axis player for not pursuing the other sieges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
I completed another run-through of this scenario last night. My conclusion is that the play balance in this build is weighed towards the Axis, and that the Soviets need to be buttressed especially from Dec.41 forward. What I'm thinking of doing is assigning more complete (i.e. closer to say 90%-95%) TO&Es to Soviet reinforcements, and gradually stepping up Soviet supply to reflect gradually more effective Soviet logistics. So the Soviet supply centres, which are 100-point centres, could go to say 120 in dec 41; to 140 in Dec. 42; and to perhaps 160 in Dec 43 -- roughly corresponding to the increasingly formidable historical Soviet winter offensives. Since you're doing a playthrough, how do you find the balance and do you think this might make the scenario more challenging?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/GermWeapProd.html#monthly

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I've never heard of Matildas being up gunned with Russian 76's - is there an online source for that?
Ta