RE: German use of corps in 1942 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Michael T -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/16/2013 10:16:17 PM)

Buy D base I mean die base (10) for Soviet Army rolls. Eg 41 might be D15 rather than D10.



Peltonx -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/17/2013 1:53:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Buy D base I mean die base (10) for Soviet Army rolls. Eg 41 might be D15 rather than D10.


The current set-up if you look at die rolls says SHC amrie leaders are as good as GHC because they do not need Corp.

All armies D rolls should be

Corp 10
Armie 30
Front/MD/AG 60
OKH/Stavka 100

The current system does not punish SHC for only having 3 lvls of management and punishes GHC for having 4.



turtlefang -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/17/2013 4:30:14 PM)

A very simple idea (simple ideas that work are always the best ideas).

This would address a lot of issues and make a number of logical changes although not sure how it would ultimately impact play balance.

1) Reality is that STAVKA and OKH shouldn't impact local battles that much. As one person put it, when it happens, it should be a miracle. And Z might not be the best choice for STAVKA any more - Sharop?? can't spell his name, might be due to his admin rating.

2) It works within the current system and is consistent.

3) It actually encourages "front" overloading of armies

On the German side, it would penalize disbanding corps. You would end up with a lot fewer reserve activations and SU commitments.

This, BTW, might also reduce the Soviet reserve activations and SU commitments Michael T was worried about earlier on the Soviet side. As the fronts get overloaded, the initiative rating will decline. And if you just move them back to being attached directly to a front, the likelihood of an activation goes down.



morvael -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/17/2013 4:36:53 PM)

Why not just change the rule 11.3.2:
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units to which the unit involved is not directly attached, i.e. HQ units higher up the chain of command."
to
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units that are not Corps (Type 4) level."



Peltonx -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/17/2013 7:02:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Why not just change the rule 11.3.2:
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units to which the unit involved is not directly attached, i.e. HQ units higher up the chain of command."
to
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units that are not Corps (Type 4) level."



Because we all both sides simply move OKH and Stavka to the front and attach units under them. We are alrdy getting around this rule as turtlefang has stated.

Both sides are simply by passing the rules and it is working consitantly for both sides.

The fix needs to be historical.

Currently the SHC command structure is far far game changing better then GHC over 200+ turns. This is not historical in any way shape or form.

The fix needs to make GHC C&C better then SHC C&C not keep it worse or even.

In other word done right the first time and not tweaked over 6 months.




loki100 -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/17/2013 7:37:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Currently the SHC command structure is far far game changing better then GHC over 200+ turns. This is not historical in any way shape or form.

The fix needs to make GHC C&C better then SHC C&C not keep it worse or even.

In other word done right the first time and not tweaked over 6 months.



You keep on saying this as if it was a given truth. The Soviet command system worked exceptionally well, it was very well structured to deliver the model of warfare they had worked by late 1942.

The problem is, I agree, that hooking armies to Stavka is too effective. The only instance I can find of armies that were in contact using that structure was the Volkhov-Tikhvin battles in late 41. The resulting problems of control and convoluted communications (plus one of the armies - 54th - was assigned to the Leningrad command) meant that looks like a one-off. The result was the creation of the Volkhov front.

So what we need is a suitable malus that means any army subordinated to Stavka suffers a command malus if it is attacking or defending. That would mirror the Tikhvin experience and wider Soviet operational practice.



Peltonx -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/18/2013 12:03:46 AM)

I am not saying Staka was a bad or did not get better over time.

GHC is worse then SHC as the rule set is now Light years worse. The only way to even get GHC on even footing with SHC is to delete 40 Corp, because they are usless.

GHC command and control was much more fluid and could make changes on the fly unlike SHC. SHC worked as needed, but it was poor at the tactical level.



swkuh -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/18/2013 3:46:20 PM)

Doing strange things with command chains seems a bit gamey to me. Think the developers missed a point by allowing too much intervention here. Command chains changed over time and quality of command surely did, too.



The Guru -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/18/2013 4:13:22 PM)

quote:

Why not just change the rule 11.3.2:
"A command range modifier is applied to leader rating checks conducted by leaders in headquarters units to which the unit involved is not directly attached, i.e. HQ units higher up the chain of command."


actually, I'm a little puzzled. Why is there a range modifier divisor shown for Corps, when it's only supposed to apply, as per the rule, to HQ's "higher up in the chain of command"? How can a Corps HQ be higher up in the chain of command?
I always thought that Corps HQs added 1 to the Die-base for each hex distant from their attached unit...

Does this rule mean that if you attach ALL units to Stavka under Zhukov none of them will suffer from distance modifier?!?!?!?



rmonical -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/18/2013 5:00:32 PM)

quote:

actually, I'm a little puzzled. Why is there a range modifier divisor shown for Corps, when it's only supposed to apply, as per the rule


If you go back to the initiative check thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3300597, Pavel points out that the range modifier is implemented at all level of command by first subtracting 5.
quote:


Range check is done on all levels. As I can see range modifiers in your tables are incorrect.

Ex.
Corps range 5 rg mod = abs(5-5)/1 = 0
Army range 10. rg mod = abs(10-5)/2 = 2
AG range 15. rg mod = abs(15-5)/3 = 3
HC range 30. rg mod = abs(30-5)/4 = 6
etc..



Simbelmude -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/18/2013 5:12:53 PM)

Does that mean, then, that there is no range modifier for Corps?



rmonical -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/19/2013 12:39:52 AM)

According to the equation, there is. At 6 hexes it is 1, 7 is 2 etc.



Peltonx -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/19/2013 1:31:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Doing strange things with command chains seems a bit gamey to me. Think the developers missed a point by allowing too much intervention here. Command chains changed over time and quality of command surely did, too.


True, but why is SHC C&C better then GHC C&C?

Is it ok for SHC to game system by over loading armies because the Big Z in at the top?

Is it ok for SHC to put armies under Stavka, because it is gaming the system?

Things need to work both ways not one.

Its not ok to nerf one side and not other is it?




Simbelmude -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/19/2013 11:55:55 AM)

quote:

According to the equation, there is. At 6 hexes it is 1, 7 is 2 etc.


Ok so whether teh Corps HQ is in the hex with the unit or 5 hexes away has no effect, except for SU commitment possibly... right?



rmonical -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/19/2013 2:13:18 PM)

quote:

Ok so whether teh Corps HQ is in the hex with the unit or 5 hexes away has no effect, except for SU commitment possibly... right?


If by SU commitment you mean support squad commitment, yes you are correct. I went through the same discovery process a few weeks ago.[;)]



Simbelmude -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/27/2013 12:39:03 AM)

So what's the final say aout this Corps thing?

if you attach Soviet units to armies, what's the distance modifier, if any? What's the distance modifier for the commanding front then?



Peltonx -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/27/2013 12:50:02 AM)

Its 5 for all HQ's top to bottom.

No difference as far as divisions under them

OKH and Stavka can run 30 divisions in the front 10 hexes and 10 panzer/tank units behind them in reserve mode, plus unlimited SU's under them or/+ run armies under them skipping Fronts and AG's.

I do not see a down side to the supper blob, not my idea but have seen others using it as SHC.

The big plus to disbanding GHC Corps is a huge late war boost to manpower.

As we have seen with games that get to 44, the ones that do not only have 3.2 to 3 million on Jan 1st 44. The ones that disband have 3.5 million or more by Jan 44.

They simply slow down replasements to front line units, eat up needed supplies ect ect ect. The SHC doen't have them so why not cut the ball and chain.




gamer78 -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/27/2013 2:22:53 AM)

Thanks for brief explanation.
Is it possible to give corps hqs a slight advantage in the code with a few tweaks? (combat rolls&dispatching support units) I think it is ok to have generic 5 hexes for all other hierarchy for WIE 1.




rmonical -> RE: German use of corps in 1942 (4/27/2013 3:30:32 AM)

quote:

Is it possible to give corps hqs a slight advantage in the code with a few tweaks? (combat rolls&dispatching support units) I think it is ok to have generic 5 hexes for all other hierarchy for WIE 1.


I posted some thoughts here.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3305451



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375