1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (Full Version)

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



Message

Telemecus -> 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/30/2019 9:47:47 PM)

Those who play the campaign game from 1941 into 1942 will know the situation that Germany has many units which it will never have enough manpower to fill. So the question is which units should get the manpower. By reducing the maximum percentage of ToE on weaker units you can instead divert manpower replacements to your stronger units.

In the 2x3+ team game we had a great debate over whether they should go exclusively to the best units, or whether all units should have some sort of minimum percentage strength which was far more than just enough to keep them ready. In the latter case the overall average statistics would be lower. Note that replacements do not simply fully dilute the experience and morale of the unit they arrive in. By sending replacements to better units rather than worse units they in effect become higher rated replacements themselves. see https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4699518

To illustrate the difference we created the following example with hard numbers

[image]local://upfiles/53894/CA8A143E6D504F30A27C2A115A4D8951.jpg[/image]

There are three groups of units which I have called Elite, Workhorses and Dregs. There are 280k men in the pool and I have assumed we want to keep a buffer of 43k.

Two methods

i) We aim to maximise the morale/xp/cv regardless of unit distribution. So we start switching units with the best stats up to max 100% ToE lowering the threshold for them until all the pool will be used except the buffer we want to leave. First we set all the Elite units to a maximum of 100% ToE, but find there will still be many more replacements in the pool than we need. So we lower the threshold some more and next we move on to the workhorses. Now we find all Elite and Workhorses set at maximum 100% ToE exhaust all our manpower pool except the margin we want to keep and so we stop lowering the threshold. All units below (the Dregs) are turned down to 33%, just enough to prevent them from being unready.

ii) We aim to maintain a minimum ToE for all units. In this case giving every unit at least 67% maximum ToE will still leave enough to get all the Elite units to a maximum 100% ToE.

Let us assume that there is a "North" sector consisting of five hexes each facing the enemy on two hexsides. With the second method each hex could be defended by a Dreg unit of 12,000 men with a defensive CV of 10.4 per enemy hexside. In the first method you would need each hex to be defended by a Dreg unit plus at least a regiment from a Workhorse division to do as well. This would be exactly the same number of men, 12,000, but would have a slightly higher defensive cv per enemy hexside of 11.0

The first method does produce higher average morale, cv and experience per unit and higher total cv for the whole army overall. In our assumed North it would also have slightly higher cv for exactly the same number of men although using more units. The rest of the front would also have exactly the same number of men for roughly the same cv but they will be concentrated in fewer units. This is an illustrative example only. But slightly different numbers could mean the North would be defended by the same CV for a smaller manpower for example

So essentially the debate is do you want to maximise total cv/morale/xp of your total manpower and feel you can split up and relocate units to do whatever is needed? Or are there some combinations of split up and relocated units that could not do that like was done in this example. Or is there something intrinsic about a division that cannot be replicated by some other combination with the same CV and manpower in the same hex? Or do you need to sacrifice some of the maximum possible potential of your manpower in favour of particular units? I think is a global view versus a local view and probably the answer is a bit of both but the judgement is to what degree of each.



Telemecus -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/30/2019 9:51:34 PM)

Attached is the spreadsheet used for the calculations above (open office format) along with pdf and text of the example should anyone want to mess around with it.



Shalkai -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 7:29:48 AM)

I would prefer option 2. In example, you want ~22 CV per hex in your five hex section of front. That's goal 1, met either way. Goal 2 is freeing up units for operations (elites and some/all of the workhorse divisions).
Advantages of option 2...
- less total CV, but two extra divisions (25 vs. 23) free for operations.
- less units to stack
- less CP used in HHQ
- no lost MP if the front is mobile from gathering and recombining broken down workhorse regiments. Or lost MP advancing regiments into enemy control.
- less total CV, but more resiliency in the defenders. If retreated and attacked again, they probably will retreat, not rout because they were unready after only one attack. This is probably the biggest advantage I see at first glance. option 1 is an eggshell defense, the dregs will crack and rout sooner.

More full divisions available is more important during offensive actions - they use less MP moving forward for example.

The differences are not huge. Option 1 might be best on a static front in a defensive stance. For offensive stance or fluid fronts, ideally I'd try to build option 2. The five workhorse divisions are less capable, yes...but add one to the twenty operational elite and three operational workhorse divisions, set the other as reserve for just in case, and I think I'd be ahead of option 1.

question: how about digging in? I'd think a division at 67% would build up fort levels quicker than a division at 33% and a regiment at 100%. I don't know the math involved, though.

This is a good, thought-provoking exercise. Thanks, Telemecus :)



chaos45 -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 10:43:07 AM)

In general you want your replacements funneled to your better units is true of both sides.

Usually as Axis you will want to do this starting in 1941 by reducing your ToE % in all your normal/not high morale infantry divisions and reducing all the ToE on useless support units.

You can also build up even more manpower by selective disbands of units that are of little worth but soak up manpower.

For the soviets its much the same prioritize replacements to higher morale units and leave your newly formed/reforming units on lower ToE until your army recovers.



Hanny -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 1:14:45 PM)

What do you consider what the desired CV value of your 3 TOEs are?, if your trying to make your Workhorses defensive CV to high enough to make a 2:1 harder for the SU to achieve you also need a fair estimate of how the offensive CV of SU units in combinations of units may look like, and vica versa, is your workhorse in offence wasting more CV than it need when it works in tandem with other units to attack at 2:1.



Brandon_37 -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 5:39:12 PM)

When I play the late scenarios as the Axis, I put the TOE of German HQs at 91% and the TOE of German mobile units that will never withdraw or disband at 76%, unless they are not needed or about to die or something. I think those are the lowest numbers without a movement/command penalty. All other units get the minimum TOE to keep them ready unless they have some special situation or task. I actually don't run out of manpower or lose battles due to low manpower often.



Telemecus -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 6:14:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brandon_37
When I play the late scenarios as the Axis, I put the TOE of German HQs at 91% ... I think those are the lowest numbers without a movement/command penalty.


That used to be very common for many players and I used to do that - but it does not apply anymore and some now argue it never did. Basically the old idea was that there was a critical rounding point at 90% so you could keep HQs at a safe margin above it and not suffer any penalties. However this has been confirmed as not being true anymore in the latest patches - and according to Morvael it never was. Do have a look at the latest updated unofficial manual in the ratings and leaders section. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4529371

Basically it means now that any ToE below 100% on an HQ could reduce ratings. And as a result in one game just over a year ago I remember having to increase the ToE of all my HQs from 93% (which is where I kept them to allow for movement attrition etc) to 100%.



chaos45 -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 8:49:18 PM)

yes morvael changed the random rolls to basically go down more decimal places or some such so now every single % less than 100% is a negative of some impact.



AlbertN -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (10/31/2019 11:03:55 PM)

One of the reasons for which I'd never be able to play this game in multiplayer.
To just inform a division commander "Hello man, you're not going to receive replacements and your division will work at 50% of the effectives"... (and traslate that otherworldly principle into the micromancement of handling all TOEs)...



56ajax -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (11/1/2019 2:36:15 AM)

Use the CR, sort your units on morale/exp or whatever and adjust TOEs accordingly, until your brain turns to jelly....



Telemecus -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (11/1/2019 1:45:44 PM)

And the Axis side has the easier job of managing ToEs ...



AlbertN -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (11/1/2019 4:02:40 PM)

That's something I hope gets ditched in WITE2.
At best a setting where each army gets a % of replacements / production, or even army group level. With a minimal percentage (no armed force of an active front would be left totally drained of replacements)

Less micro to make the game more smooth & fluid & enjoyable.



Beria -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (11/3/2019 12:26:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brandon_37
When I play the late scenarios as the Axis, I put the TOE of German HQs at 91% and the TOE of German mobile units that will never withdraw or disband at 76%, unless they are not needed or about to die or something. I think those are the lowest numbers without a movement/command penalty. All other units get the minimum TOE to keep them ready unless they have some special situation or task. I actually don't run out of manpower or lose battles due to low manpower often.


To be clear though if they are on 76% ToE they will lose about a quarter of their combat value. They only have no penalty in the sense that they do not go unready or depleted (given their likely morale)

What this means is that you are giving no priority to the better units - which is an even more extreme case than option ii above. So your army will be less capable than the two options given. However it will mean less micromanagement.

The reason why you have put the ToEe to 76% is because you actually have run out of manpower. To say that you then lower ToEs to a level where you do not run out of manpower is circular.



Brandon_37 -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (11/4/2019 5:39:49 PM)

Ah so I should just keep them at the minimum needed to not go unready and increase the maximum TOE% as needed?



Telemecus -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (11/4/2019 6:12:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brandon_37
Ah so I should just keep them at the minimum needed to not go unready and increase the maximum TOE% as needed?


Well it is an allocation problem. If you increase all maximum ToEs equally then you will not prioritise the replacements going to the best units. It is a choice to make but just need to be aware of the consequences. If you national morale is something like 70 and they are sent to a unit with morale 90 then the replacements magically become experienced at say 85. Whereas sent as replacements to a unit with lower morale they will arrive with lower morale. if on the other hand you put your best units at 100% and keep your worst units at something much smaller - then the replacements gain morale just by going exclusively to the better units.



Ian R -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (2/20/2020 8:49:34 AM)

Late response, but what is the player here? Are you OKH in all its diverse forms? Or are you on more of the military operational side of things with logistics and replacements being handled by some general staff lackey?

You might have some influence over priorities, but the game system should impose on you the same extraneous influence inertia that afflicted the real universe of commanders. At best you can prioritize a unit for replacement support, but there should be a fair few GG die rolls to pass before you get there.



Telemecus -> RE: 1942 German Manpower Settings Debate (2/20/2020 11:15:08 AM)

There is quite a good subtle point here and I have had this debate many times. Some do see the players as being Hitler and Stalin (or occasionally some imagined replacement) as the supreme heads. Others seem themselves as the head of the army with unwelcome constraints imposed by their political heads. And some something else lower down.

I think the problem is this is never explicit anywhere which can lead to misunderstandings plus some of the endless debate about game balance and gameyness. The WitE program itself I think implies some sort of mish mash of all of the above.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.296997