Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are overloaded?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are overloaded?

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are overloaded?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are overloa... - 7/27/2013 1:24:29 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Given that Front support units do help in combats with Army-level combat units... is there any point at all in being paranoid about Front command points?

That is, as the Soviets are going to reach 72 Armies for 11 Fronts, that makes some 7 Armies per Front; at 33 command points per Army, that makes 231 command points for the Front (plus Air Bases), when the Front limit by 45 is 99 command points.

So.. what? If almost all fighting will be done by the Armies, and Fronts add little to combat, should we ignore the Front CP limit and focus on the Army CP limit only?

Post #: 1

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 4:22:57 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

The Soviets never see 33CP per Army. They start at 24 and drop to 18 by 4/42. (it was changed some time ago. One of those "pro Soviet" changes some railed about.)

It's been suggested by Flaviusx that one should leave the Tank Armies with Stavka, as it never overloads.

Manual(US Letter):

Leaders of headquarters units where the number of attached units exceeds the command capacity (7.6.2) will have their chances of making the leader rating check reduced with the more excess units, the less the chance of a successful check.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 7/27/2013 4:36:06 AM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 2

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 5:46:02 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Ops, forgot to read the notes for 1.05.59, thanks for the correction.

Alright, so at 5 Armies per Front we have 5x18 = 90 cp, plus a little bit for the air bases. That makes it 5x11 = 55 Armies at the Fronts, and some 10-15 Armies with STAVKA (depending how much players create).

Or, if one's willing to take a hit on those checks, at 6 Armies per Front we have 6x11 = 66 Armies at Front, plus some 5 Armies with STAVKA.

So these are the two reasonable options, right? 5 Armies/Front with no leader penalties, or 6 Armies/Front with some leader penalties?

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 3

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 9:07:58 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Sounds right to me.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 4

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 10:25:54 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Ops, forgot to read the notes for 1.05.59, thanks for the correction.

Alright, so at 5 Armies per Front we have 5x18 = 90 cp, plus a little bit for the air bases. That makes it 5x11 = 55 Armies at the Fronts, and some 10-15 Armies with STAVKA (depending how much players create).

Or, if one's willing to take a hit on those checks, at 6 Armies per Front we have 6x11 = 66 Armies at Front, plus some 5 Armies with STAVKA.

So these are the two reasonable options, right? 5 Armies/Front with no leader penalties, or 6 Armies/Front with some leader penalties?

What I've done, and this is as much driven by an RP mindset as careful analysis, is to accept the front overloads. I don't think its realistic to tie any army to Stavka if it is in combat. The Soviets did that in late 41 (what became the Volkhov Front) and it caused chaos as Stavka's communication and control systems were not up to managing the small scale requests that an army would have normally cleared with its front.

I've found that by mid-42 you tend to only have 2 badly overloaded fronts as the new commands allow you get the rest under control.

As to the Tank Armies, I've tied them to Fronts (3 to one, 2 to another) and added a couple of regular armies to each. These Fronts, even in mid-42 can be inserted and pulled out of the line as needed. The rough brigading of a regular army with a Tank Army was Soviet practice (for eg Chuikov's 8 Guards fought most of the war in co-operation with 1GTA). In this case the only time they were split was when 8GA was used in Bagration and 1GTA was kept in the Ukraine (they came back together for the battles at the end of 1944).

These two fronts have a lot of spare CP, so hopefully good reserve activation and help with MP etc.

Seems to work out well enough, and avoids the minor cheese of using Zhukov's high ratings in Stavka to avoid some of the deficiencies in Soviet command. In reality, the unavoidable problem is that mass of 3-5, 3-6 army commanders that you cannot avoid using.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 7/27/2013 10:27:05 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 5

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 1:16:28 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Interesting thing: if you load some late war scenarios and see how some armies are terribly overloaded - scenario designer just wanted to reflect historical assignments. These are the best armies (Shock, Guards, Tank) that are supposed to do the heaviest fighting. In WitE reality they won't make a single test properly, so their value is very limited unless those "bad" assignments are "fixed", but that costs a lot of APs, which in a newly started scenario are always low. Also, there is a lot of front-level units, which gives them bad modifiers in combat due to not being part of the commanding HQ. Surely, the Russians weren't so incompetent in January '45, therefore something in the command model of WitE must be re-examined and adjusted to allow better representation of historical events. Perhaps this 18CP limit is based on an average army loadout, but how are we going to handle crack forces having the most corps and artillery? There should be a way of having more CP per corps/army/front, for example tied to MAX TOE% and current TOE% of the HQ unit, so an army could be set to 150% TOE and get 750 support squads and have 27CP.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 6

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 2:23:59 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

aye, I've recently played the Mars scenario and it would have been handy if Stavka had read the WiTE rulebook when it created that OOB.

In effect, it kills any impact of the army on the operations of the individual units.

Broadly I think the 18 CP is right, most Soviet armies by mid war used about 6-8 rifle divisions (ie 2-3 corps), but they heavily loaded key shock forces, which is the reverse of good practice in WiTE where I tend to want spare CPs in my key formations to increase the bonuses.

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 7

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 2:31:11 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
In effect, it kills any impact of the army on the operations of the individual units.

Worse than that - it not only doesn't help, it actually hurts you, as unit CV in combat (which determines whether you get retreat or hold) can be reduced for failed leader rolls.

I agree that 18CP is good as average, but key armies should have higher limit. Perhaps hardcode Shock and Guards to have 24CP?

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 8

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 3:12:25 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I fought the fight over command capacity a long time ago and lost. Both armies and fronts are currently understated, Fronts especially. It's pretty hilarious looking at the late war 1. Belorussian and 1. Ukrainian Fronts and seeing how severely overloaded they are, along with a number of their armies.

18 command capacity "works" as an average, but I don't think armies can be treated in this fashion. Soviet could and did field armies much larger and smaller than this, which indicates high variability. At the very least guards and shock armies ought to have a bigger command load than 18, imo. The Front situation is even more variable, as Front organization was highly mission specific.

The tank army limits at least are correct...and wildly unpopular. Hardly anybody bothers with those HQs. But that's a whole other rant.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 9

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 3:34:58 PM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

I have not noticed one .
basicly i only lost the byalostock and kovel pocket and the AI did not breach the STALIN line.

by may 1942 i had under command.

10 fronts ,4 M.D. plus STAVKA and moskow defense zone.
55 armies + 6 corps + 23 air comands.

42 tank and cavalry corps
438 divisions + 60 airbases
223 brigades .

Pointless to say I did bother to create any new unit and build up every corps from existing assets.
the fronts have in average 30 points over command limit so how would you guys sort this one out ?

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 10

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 5:37:17 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I fought the fight over command capacity a long time ago and lost. Both armies and fronts are currently understated, Fronts especially. It's pretty hilarious looking at the late war 1. Belorussian and 1. Ukrainian Fronts and seeing how severely overloaded they are, along with a number of their armies.

18 command capacity "works" as an average, but I don't think armies can be treated in this fashion. Soviet could and did field armies much larger and smaller than this, which indicates high variability. At the very least guards and shock armies ought to have a bigger command load than 18, imo. The Front situation is even more variable, as Front organization was highly mission specific.

The tank army limits at least are correct...and wildly unpopular. Hardly anybody bothers with those HQs. But that's a whole other rant.

Perhaps Admin rating should modify the CC of the HQ... that should be a realistic thing.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 11

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 7:54:01 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I fought the fight over command capacity a long time ago and lost. Both armies and fronts are currently understated, Fronts especially. It's pretty hilarious looking at the late war 1. Belorussian and 1. Ukrainian Fronts and seeing how severely overloaded they are, along with a number of their armies.

18 command capacity "works" as an average, but I don't think armies can be treated in this fashion. Soviet could and did field armies much larger and smaller than this, which indicates high variability. At the very least guards and shock armies ought to have a bigger command load than 18, imo. The Front situation is even more variable, as Front organization was highly mission specific.

The tank army limits at least are correct...and wildly unpopular. Hardly anybody bothers with those HQs. But that's a whole other rant.

Perhaps Admin rating should modify the CC of the HQ... that should be a realistic thing.

That, or the CP limit should start going up by 43. I can see why it drops, Soviet command abilities being what they were at start. But they got better as the war went on. So it should start rising.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 12

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 8:08:10 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
That, or the CP limit should start going up by 43. I can see why it drops, Soviet command abilities being what they were at start. But they got better as the war went on. So it should start rising.

The reality, I believe, is the reverse, the large armies they formed in 1941 were too unwieldy.

What I think happened was that key commands got extra staff officers, not least they were often involved in offensives of direct interest to Stavka. That in turn allowed the Guards/Shock Armies and key combined armies to operate more effectively with larger formations under their direct control.

By 1943, the second rate Soviet command units were still pretty dire, which the game models well. So an average Soviet army commander with normal staff could, about, handle 6-8 divisions. As long as the local Germans were fairly passive.

Since in-game, you can operate within the 18 CP cap, and by mid-43, most of your Fronts are ok (I think I have about 50 excess CPs in my current game, with nothing reporting to Stavka), prob best seen as a reasonable simplification. Where it is an issue is in the late war scenarios, where its clear Stavka did not understand the rules

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 13

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 8:20:56 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
That, or the CP limit should start going up by 43. I can see why it drops, Soviet command abilities being what they were at start. But they got better as the war went on. So it should start rising.

The reality, I believe, is the reverse, the large armies they formed in 1941 were too unwieldy.

That's why I said I can see why it drops :)

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 14

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/27/2013 9:37:18 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

Part of the problem is that there are too many late war fronts available. Trans-Caucasus Front is basically given for free, whether the Axis go into the Caucasus or not. Historically, it was really only in action during the Caucasus campaign. Similarly with Leningrad Front, it was out of action once Finland surrendered.

I imagine it'll get cleared up in WitE 2.0, by having more historical Front withdrawls and maybe higher late-war Front CP. Or maybe have additional CP room tied to a few specific commanders, like Zhukov and Konev.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 15

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 11:24:02 AM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Maybe it would be better if CV depended on the commander involved. If I'm not wrong, oversize armies in the Red Army were given to the most competent generals (or those in Stalin's favour, but its besides the point) and thus, it was a reflection of their abilitiy. Frankly it would also give an incentive to retain certain generals in army commands for crack armies. Maybe, this could be linked to the administrative rating of the general

@Schmart - I think that these fronts were actually renamed and reused during the war. At a game level it could be compared to the transfer of officers from one command post to another.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 16

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 3:30:54 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

I personally think this command capacity concept should be completely reworked. Perhaps for WITW, but surely for WITE. The Soviet side has already been mentioned, but in my opinion the German side also deserves some consideration. Just open up the 1943 scenario, 18th Army is overloaded by 31, 9th Army by 15. In the 1942 scenario besides 18th Army being overloaded by 28, 16th Army is overloaded by 18, 9th Army by 17, 1st Panzer by 11 and 2nd Panzer by 9. Honestly, if you take away the RHGs, in the 1942 scenario out of 12 German Armies, 9 are overloaded.

First, I think that command capacity should partly be linked to the attributes of a commander. It makes no sense that in terms of the amount of units a commander can lead, Zhukov or Manstein are put on the same level as some random leader of a corps. The administration attribute (perhaps in combination with rank) would be perfectly suited for this task. Make something like 18 and 24 the standard amount (for corps, army groups, fronts likewise), and for every point above 5 or so the command limit is raised by a certain percentage. And if rank is another factor, then for every rank the command capacity is also raised.

Second, perhaps the different philosophies of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in terms of leading their units should get some consideration. The German army was famous for its "Auftragstaktik", giving their subordinates (comparatively) a great amount of freedom. That's why the Germans had no problem in subordinating Panzer Groups under regular armies for certain tasks in 1941. For example on June 22nd, for the border battles Panzer Groups 2 and 3 were subordinate to 4th and 9th Army respectively, then for Typhoon Panzer Group 3 was subordinated to 9th Army and Panzer Group 4 to 4th Army. (on 2nd October 41 9th Army possessed 23 divisions - which would be 22 over the command limit, and 4th Army 22 divisions). Furthermore, the Germans frequently formed "Armeegruppen", grouping two, sometimes three armies together under the command of one army leader.

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 17

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 3:36:00 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

First, I think that command capacity should partly be linked to the attributes of a commander. It makes no sense that in terms of the amount of units a commander can lead, Zhukov or Manstein are put on the same level as some random leader of a corps. The administration attribute (perhaps in combination with rank) would be perfectly suited for this task. Make something like 18 and 24 the standard amount (for corps, army groups, fronts likewise), and for every point above 5 or so the command limit is raised by a certain percentage. And if rank is another factor, then for every rank the command capacity is also raised.

Not true. I am too lazy to sit down and do the math, but for each superior attribute of a Zhukov, any formation he leads can be overloaded by X amount and still do as well or better than a commander with lower attributes. Any one who cares to grind through the math can come up with a table that relates how much Marshall X can be overloaded before his performance drops below the level of General Y

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 18

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 3:43:53 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

A skill 7 leader is equal to skill 4 leader when overloaded by 10 points, skill 3 when overloaded by 20 points, skill 2 (rougly) when overloaded by 30 points. A German Army or a Soviet Front overloaded by 30 points means your best leader is amongst the worst now.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 19

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 4:05:53 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

First, I think that command capacity should partly be linked to the attributes of a commander. It makes no sense that in terms of the amount of units a commander can lead, Zhukov or Manstein are put on the same level as some random leader of a corps. The administration attribute (perhaps in combination with rank) would be perfectly suited for this task. Make something like 18 and 24 the standard amount (for corps, army groups, fronts likewise), and for every point above 5 or so the command limit is raised by a certain percentage. And if rank is another factor, then for every rank the command capacity is also raised.

Not true. I am too lazy to sit down and do the math, but for each superior attribute of a Zhukov, any formation he leads can be overloaded by X amount and still do as well or better than a commander with lower attributes. Any one who cares to grind through the math can come up with a table that relates how much Marshall X can be overloaded before his performance drops below the level of General Y

Aside from the issue morvael mentioned, you missed my point. What is the sense of letting your best commanders command more units than a random guy, if in the end his abilities gets reduced to the attributes of said random guy? If you want to make full use of the abilities of a commander you simply can't overload. It is the same, because no matter whether random guy X or von Manstein, as soon as you overload, their abilities decrease.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 20

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 6:55:11 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

A skill 7 leader is equal to skill 4 leader when overloaded by 10 points, skill 3 when overloaded by 20 points, skill 2 (rougly) when overloaded by 30 points. A German Army or a Soviet Front overloaded by 30 points means your best leader is amongst the worst now.

Then of course, you have Konev's 1944 1. Ukrainian Front which is overloaded by no less than 86 points. (A number of the individual armies exceed 30 command points, too.) 185/99 to be precise.

Ye flipping gods.

Might as well put Budenny in charge of it or some other nitwit because at that degree of overloading it really makes no difference who is running the show. Hell, you might as well delete the Front for the cost of 1 AP and just have all those armies subordinate themselves to STAVKA. You probably will make more command checks that way, although you will get hit with more cooperation penalties.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 21

RE: Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are ove... - 7/29/2013 7:08:36 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

A skill 7 leader is equal to skill 4 leader when overloaded by 10 points, skill 3 when overloaded by 20 points, skill 2 (rougly) when overloaded by 30 points. A German Army or a Soviet Front overloaded by 30 points means your best leader is amongst the worst now.

Then of course, you have Konev's 1944 1. Ukrainian Front which is overloaded by no less than 86 points. (A number of the individual armies exceed 30 command points, too.) 185/99 to be precise.

Ye flipping gods.

Might as well put Budenny in charge of it or some other nitwit because at that degree of overloading it really makes no difference who is running the show. Hell, you might as well delete the Front for the cost of 1 AP and just have all those armies subordinate themselves to STAVKA. You probably will make more command checks that way, although you will get hit with more cooperation penalties.

Rokossovsky's 1st Belorussian tops this one with -134.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 22

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Is there any bad effect in combat if Fronts are overloaded?

Page: [1]