Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

what the parent HQs ?

LI Korps/6th Army/Army Group South ?

Most units are attached to either a corps HQ or (Soviet) army HQ. Supply goes straight from rail head to the HQ. There is no movement of supply between HQs. In your example above LI corps supplies the divisions attached to it. Although 6th Army and Army Group South draw supply, they would only supply divisions directly attached to them.

kind of strange thinking then, since the parent HQ is where most of the Log support would be at ?, Korps would have just the basic set up to pass the supplies on, the supplies would come from the parent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Currently there is no anti-partisan bonus for being SS. From a practical point of view unless you're referring to the really crappy SS Grenadier divisions, no player in his right mind would every waste a "real" SS division hunting partisans.

you do have sec Troops which are better at hunting the Partisans, use them for Garrison and to hunt

Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Currently there is no anti-partisan bonus for being SS. From a practical point of view unless you're referring to the really crappy SS Grenadier divisions, no player in his right mind would every waste a "real" SS division hunting partisans.

you do have sec Troops which are better at hunting the Partisans, use them for Garrison and to hunt

Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

what the parent HQs ?

LI Korps/6th Army/Army Group South ?

Most units are attached to either a corps HQ or (Soviet) army HQ. Supply goes straight from rail head to the HQ. There is no movement of supply between HQs. In your example above LI corps supplies the divisions attached to it. Although 6th Army and Army Group South draw supply, they would only supply divisions directly attached to them.

kind of strange thinking then, since the parent HQ is where most of the Log support would be at ?, Korps would have just the basic set up to pass the supplies on, the supplies would come from the parent

Think about what you just wrote from a game system point of view. You would be having supply go from the rail head to the army, from the army to the corps, and from the corps to the division. In this chain either the army or the corps is redundant and the system is more flexible and less subject to abuse by removing the army step.

Army Groups and Armies are important in the game but not for supply purposes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Ok, lets cover supply and interdiction of supply. Please describe the supply methodology in general and factors that influence the supply status of a unit.

Supply in WitE is a very complicated and involved process that would take pages to describe in detail so I will just give you the gist of it here.

There are three kinds of supply in WitE, fuel, ammo & general supply. Every unit in the game has particular requirements for each of these supply types. Units consume fuel when the move (or planes fly), ammo when they fight and general supply for a variety of purposes including the obvious rations.

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

Units within 6 hexes of a supply source get the full amount of available supply. Beyond that range supply is progressively deceased. Units low on supply have reduced movement ability (ground units) and are less combat effective (all units). Units beyond supply range or isolated are severely effected in both movement and combat.

Partisans can "interdict" supplies by damaging rail lines and supplies can be destroyed by bombing the HQ but in general the Eastern Front is just too big a place for either of these methods to be terribly effective.

Ok, so the capacity of the individual supply sources and/or the ultimate "National" supply capacity is infinite ?

The interdiction role of airpower was something that is in the current MWiR but I never really understood how it worked. Are you saying that there is no possibility of interdiction by using airpower in this game ?

No, supply is not infinite. The production system produces a set amount of supplies each turn and your usage can exceed that amount. If demand exceeds production, units make do with what they get. Supply is obviously a much bigger problem for the Axis than it is for the Russians. The lure to go south after those production resources, especially oil, will be irresistable.

Air units can interdict the movement of ground units (including HQs) but supply has no "physical presence" on the map so you can't interdict it directly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Currently there is no anti-partisan bonus for being SS. From a practical point of view unless you're referring to the really crappy SS Grenadier divisions, no player in his right mind would every waste a "real" SS division hunting partisans.

you do have sec Troops which are better at hunting the Partisans, use them for Garrison and to hunt

Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Currently there is no anti-partisan bonus for being SS. From a practical point of view unless you're referring to the really crappy SS Grenadier divisions, no player in his right mind would every waste a "real" SS division hunting partisans.

you do have sec Troops which are better at hunting the Partisans, use them for Garrison and to hunt

Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

what does that have to do with being told Sec Troops were better then normal Inf Troops at combating Partisans ?

I'll drop it there, not sure what I am allowed to say and what I am not

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.

I also do that with Russian campaign games that don't have such a rule hard coded.

If there are not stacking restriction are there at least combat penalties when various axis nationalities attack together i.e. Romanians and Germans or other such combinations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Currently there is no anti-partisan bonus for being SS. From a practical point of view unless you're referring to the really crappy SS Grenadier divisions, no player in his right mind would every waste a "real" SS division hunting partisans.

you do have sec Troops which are better at hunting the Partisans, use them for Garrison and to hunt

Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

I was waiting for that one. I thought we were dealing with a historical simulation here ? What does a players political attitude have to do with it ? Or are we making a politically correct modern newspeak version of events here ?

I think non waffen SS units were intended for partisan suppression and death camp administration and loads of other tasks that are, (rightly) completely unsavory to modern palates.

I was just going by the books I've read, (autobiographies) and other games I've played, (Avalon Hill stuff ever heard of them ?). So I thought there was some historical basis for it. But I don't care really, I just don't appreciate your insinuation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

I've seen air recon discussed in another thread ... are there any other forms of intelligence; i.e., signals intercepts?

Can you say a little more about the important uses of 'administrative points' that were alluded to earlier in this thread?

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

1) Would fuel in motor units drop to zero, so that they are inmobilized?

2) Would low morale prevent units attacking?

3) How will large changes in TOEs being handled, like for instance the shift to type 44 German inf div?

4) What are the statistics of the generals? could you give as some examples?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


we were told that for Partisan Combat, Security Troops were better then normal troops (but things change and this may be one of them)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison

The political rating effects the chance a leader will be dismissed due to poor combat performance and the chance a leader will get promoted. It can cost more administrative points to voluntarily dismiss a leader with a high political rating. It also costs additional administrative points (Axis only) to transfer units from one leader's command to another.

Here's your comparison:

Manstein: 12, 5, 6, 9, 8, 9, 1, 6

Zhukov: 28, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 1, 7

BTW, remember that Manstein begins the game as a corps commander. In later war scenarios he might be given different ratings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison

The political rating effects the chance a leader will be dismissed due to poor combat performance and the chance a leader will get promoted. It can cost more administrative points to voluntarily dismiss a leader with a high political rating. It also costs additional administrative points (Axis only) to transfer units from one leader's command to another.

Here's your comparison:

Manstein: 12, 5, 6, 9, 8, 9, 1, 6

Zhukov: 28, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 1, 7

BTW, remember that Manstein begins the game as a corps commander. In later war scenarios he might be given different ratings.

So the rating of a commander depends on how you use him in combat?


No, what I meant is that a scenario designer building a later war scenario may want to adjust leader ratings to reflect the current rank or other ratings over time. For example, Manstein was historically promoted to field marshall after the fall of Sevastopol so if you were designing a scenario for the Stalingrad counteroffensive (Operation Uranus) you would want to change Manstein's rank.


Does that mean that political points would scale up and down?


No, not in a ongoing game but like rank, scenario designers might want to adjust the initial political rating which is an average of a leader's entire length of service. Using Manstein again as an example, his political rating in a scenario designed for 1944 might be lower than his wartime average to reflect that Hitler was losing faith in him by then.


If that is the case does that mean that there would be: eg A fuhrer order (commander)- take this city or hold (Kharkov) or (the commander) drop points politically- maybe be dismissed?


No, auto dismissal only results from losing lots of battles.


If that is right a (very poor) player could kill the career of a Zhukov or Guderian?


It would be very difficult to loose any German leader prior to the Soviet winter offensive of 41-42. The German army is just too good. As for Zhukov, if you were to commit him prematurely before the conditions on the ground were somewhat stabilized you could get him sacked but the probability is very low. Unlike the old War In Russia, it's actually quite hard to get fired in this game.


Does this not step outside of the historical boundaries and the game philosophy of play with what you got?
Its a shame commander ratings can be tweaked, but production cant.


Hopefully my answers above have clarified how leaders work and shown that the system is consistent with the game's historical orientation. As you can see, scenario designers, not players, are doing the tweaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

Another question-

If a korps is surrounded for sometime- and fuel supplies are wiped out, or close to it.

But!

A breakout at the last minute saves the Korps- does that Korps retain its heavy weapons and vehicles?

Or are they lost in total, or by percentage?

Also if a Korps wins the ground in battle, will they have a greater percentage of repaired vehicles?
Or will winning the ground not effect damaged vehicles and repair?

As many know winning the ground allowed for the repair of damaged vehicles, and the scavenging of spare parts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Thanks for the answer, looks a good solution
Another question, what about Soviet Tank Corps and Mech Corps, how are they represented, ax single units or as agregate of several units?

Tank and Mechanized corps are "built" by combining tank and mechanized/motorized brigades. You can also break them back down into brigades.

The major difference between tank & mechanized corps versus rifle and cavalry corps is that that tank/mech corps have unique TOEs they follow while rifle/cavalry corps are simply the sum of three divisions. Therefore while you can form a tank corps from three tank brigades, the TOE of a tank corps is not the same as the TOE of a tank brigade times three (i.e. tank corps contain combat elements not found in tank brigades).

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Thanks for the answer, looks a good solution
Another question, what about Soviet Tank Corps and Mech Corps, how are they represented, ax single units or as agregate of several units?

Tank and Mechanized corps are "built" by combining tank and mechanized/motorized brigades. You can also break them back down into brigades.

The major difference between tank & mechanized corps versus rifle and cavalry corps is that that tank/mech corps have unique TOEs they follow while rifle/cavalry corps are simply the sum of three divisions. Therefore while you can form a tank corps from three tank brigades, the TOE of a tank corps is not the same as the TOE of a tank brigade times three (i.e. tank corps contain combat elements not found in tank brigades).

This was touched on in the Historical Accuracy thread. With this post I'm wondering two things: How accurate is the make-up of Divisions in regards to the Regiments and lower support units they actually included?

I used this example: the 2nd Pz Div (1943) was composed of the 3rd Pz Reg, 2nd PzGr Reg, 304 PzGr Reg, 74th Pz Arty, 2nd Motorcycle, 5th Pz Recce, 38th TD, 38th Pz Eng, and the 38th Pz Signal battalion.

Will I see somewhere these sub-units listed when reviewing how the 2nd Pz Div is structured?

And to repeat the question from that other thread; Can Div's be broke down into individual sub-units? And will they break down into their historical sub-units or into "hybrid" units (aka combined arms units like TOAW does)?

Thanks for the line of communications on this very interesting game

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.

I also do that with Russian campaign games that don't have such a rule hard coded.

If there are not stacking restriction are there at least combat penalties when various axis nationalities attack together i.e. Romanians and Germans or other such combinations?

There are combat penalties whenever units of different corps attack together but no penalty per se for being a different nationality at present.