Rear area security and Soviet airborne

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Rear area security and Soviet airborne

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 >> Rear area security and Soviet airborne

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 11:24:58 AM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

Bozo has been dropping airborne at the rate of more than one per turn for most of 1941 (T 20). I have been thinking about the game mechanics that induce Bozo to make many drops whilst historically, the Soviets did not. I think there are several related to air drops:
- First and foremost: an airdrop always succeeds and gains control of the target hex. The only question is casualties or whether the unit will be depleted (and not cause displacement) or not. My guess is there is no lower threshold on the number of surviving men required to control the hex.
- Secondly, these company and battalion sized formations with no heavy weapons have a dramatic impact on surrounding non-combat units- displacement.
- Thirdly, the AI does not automatically allocate construction units to rail hexes cut by airborne (as it does for hexes cut by partisan units) units so an FBD has to be dispatched. In bad weather, this is a multi-turn proposition. Bad weather does not effect the airborne unit or its ability to 100% destroy the rail in the hex.

The other reason air drops are so effective is the Axis have essentially no rear area security capability. Rear area security is performed by battalion and company sized units.The Axis are restricted to regimental and larger units and so have inadequate coverage. This is OK for the way the partisan war is implemented, but it is failing for numerous small airborne operations.

This dynamic is unique to WITE because the Soviets have numerous inexpensive airborne units. I suspect the updates to the air war logic in WITW will not address this.

So what is the solution? One that is consistent with the current game engine design, is easy and does not require a house rule.

One can limit air drops administratively by making them cost a lot of APs.

Everything else I can think of requires a significant amount of coding.
- Air drops do not always succeed. Do not forbid drops on occupied hexes (and thus providing intel) - just eliminate the airborne unit.
- Air drops do not always succeed. Drops adjacent to combat units have a chance of failure - this simulates a rapid response to the air drop.
-Air drops next to a non-combat unit with combat elements assigned have a smaller chance not to succeed.

A huge change to the engine would be to allow the Axis to form 500 man rear area security detachments from combat units. If indeed the Soviets were capable of frequent air drops in 1941, then this would be a historical option.
Another large change would be to take a look at the displacement rule. Combat units with just a few hundred men can cause displacement of non combat units with 10s of thousands of men including many combat battalions. We have a step in that direction with less than division size combat units not controlling adjacent hexes. Maybe it is a small step to them not causing displacement in adjacent hexes.

Anyway, as I mentioned in the airborne threads, the current rules are broken in that they lead to historically impossible results - especially displacement.

< Message edited by rmonical -- 10/25/2013 11:47:03 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 11:52:17 AM

swkuh

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline

Is this time for the history experts to speak up? What were Soviet airborne capabilities and when were they used? Of course, by year, season, etc.

These capabilities might be well modeled by higher level coding rather than detail capabilities that attempt to control gamers' choices.

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 2

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 12:21:11 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

Glantz wrote about this.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/glantz.pdf

(in reply to swkuh)

Post #: 3

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 12:35:07 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

One can limit air drops administratively by making them cost a lot of APs.

This would be the most elegant solution. I also think that HQ buildups should be more costly in regards to APs and trucks. Basically, don't take away any features of the game but make them more costly so that the player has to think more carefully about using these capabilities.

Airborne brigades should not be allowed to displace anything. Period.

There has to be an element of uncertainty regarding airborne drops that is missing right now. They always land were they are suppose to land.

It would be nice to split Romanian and Hungarian divisions into regiments and use them to guard the rail lines. Of course, that's not going to happen.

That the game allows a lot of fictional stuff has been discussed ad nauseam. Diverting two Panzer Corps south is equally absurd. However, these options make the game interesting in my opinion.

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 4

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 1:28:16 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

Diverting two Panzer Corps south is equally absurd.

Not absurd at all. The Ukraine is far more important than Moscow.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 5

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 2:16:30 PM

loki100

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

this is another of those abuses that the game allows because I can't imagine the designers thought that some one would do it.

Soviet usage of airborne was of two types. Constant insertion of specialist NKVD units into the partisan war (both for specialist sabotage and to ensure political control). Linked to this, if not quite airborne, the creation of a regular corridor up and down which people and supplies flowed to and from the main partisan centres (most of course done by landing U2s in all sorts of implausible places).

The combat usage was limited to two phases. There was a sustained effort around the Moscow counterattack with instances of key supply routes being closed for a day or so. The fear of a large drop setting off a major encirclement was real for AGC throughout December 1941 and January 1942.

There were then no major uses of airborne till the attempt to expand the Cherkassy bridgeheads in summer 1943. It was the only attempt by the Soviets to use airborne in co-ordinate large scale manner and was a near complete disaster. The only qualification is the survivors linked up with local partisans to give the Germans a real problem in their rear area and the combined operation may have drawn German reserves off from Kiev, allowing the successful hook to the north of Kiev that ended the main German effort to hold the Dniepr.

If you take the late 41-early 42 model, what Bozo is up to can be seen to be realistic. Except the practical scale of those drops is closer to a partisan attack than the impact of a combat unit in this game.

It was no accident the Soviets ended up reforming the airborne into conventional ground formations.

_____________________________

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 6

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 2:59:44 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

If you take the late 41-early 42 model, what Bozo is up to can be seen to be realistic.

If so, then giving the Axis the ability to form comparable sized rear area security teams would make for some thrilling play. Unfortunately, once the Axis can respond as they would have historically not limited by the game mechanic of only regiment and larger combat units, then the attractiveness of the frequent small airborne drops vanishes.

So maybe an administrative solution is the way to go.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 7

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 4:31:02 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

For the Soviet player to drop airborne turn after turn after turn is game mechanics abuse. Period.

My house rule is that the Soviet cannot use airborne operations at all in 41/42.
We had a similar problem early in release with Soviet amphibious operations: Mechanics allowed Soviets to land full Armies right in to Romania and knock them out of the war in 1941 (also because the Axis have very small security capability in 1941 - it gets better in 42).

One can quote Glantz, but honestly, Glantz has a cult around this forum. Those who quote him are trying to bully the game to suit their own view of history and what was possible.

The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union could not have conceivably mastered the operational and doctrinal tempo to continually drop airborne brigades in an organized fashion. They couldn't do it. Period.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 8

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 5:00:55 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

One can quote Glantz, but honestly, Glantz has a cult around this forum. Those who quote him are trying to bully the game to suit their own view of history and what was possible.

The Glantz document reinforces the fact that Soviet airborne operations were rare.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 9

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 5:25:52 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

quote:

One can quote Glantz, but honestly, Glantz has a cult around this forum. Those who quote him are trying to bully the game to suit their own view of history and what was possible.

The Glantz document reinforces the fact that Soviet airborne operations were rare.

the truth is that most Soviet airdrops - even those in connection with the Winter Offensive were sub-scale for this game. They used them, they sometimes got lucky, an ideal modelling would be as a form of quick spawning partisan.

The reality is pre-36 they were probably in advance of most other powers in their appreciation of airborne (there are some frankly terrifying pictures of men walking out along the wings of slow moving planes and jumping off the edge). Post-war, they really took the idea forward, especially in connection with their model of nuclear war. In war, it was small scale stuff offset by one grand foul up.

Bozo has clearly found a wonderful exploit that takes a vestigial ability into a means to disrupt the axis rear - even the partisan war before Bagration never really managed that. It would be a pity to lose that vestigial ability, but it would need to modelled around a very high failure probability (and if it fails you just lose the unit), for this to correctly simulated before 1943.

So on balance, I'd go with heliodorous04's suggestion, just don't do it.

_____________________________

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 10

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 6:57:38 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

These are all valid points. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep in mind that for every action there is a counter-action. Why is it that the Soviets have complete command of the sky? Where are the Axis fighters? Why are the airbases not scouted to figure out where the transports are coming from? Why are these airbases not bombed into oblivion? You don't want your RR Repair unit/HQ/Airbase to displace? Why don't you stack them with a combat unit. You need to protect a hex that is vital for supply? Then put a unit in that hex.

In my opinion an exploit is something you can't defend against. I'm not convinced that the mighty Luftwaffe is unable to fend off a couple dozen of transport planes. Shoot them down or bomb them on the ground and the party is over.

I don't think we need a house rule for that.

< Message edited by Bozo_the_Clown -- 10/25/2013 7:00:55 PM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 11

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 7:10:55 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

Why is it that the Soviets have complete command of the sky?

I have no idea why my fighters are not flying. Get the turn back to me and I'll show my air doctrine screen. These landings typically occur within a few hexes of a fighter base with over 100 fighters.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 12

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 7:12:29 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

You don't want your RR Repair unit/HQ/Airbase to displace? Why don't you stack them with a combat unit.

That is my rear area security point. I have to use a regiment or a division when all I need is a reinforced company or a battalion.

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 13

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 8:34:34 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Even Kanev '43, the largest airborne operation the Reds ever pulled off, was a disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Dnieper#Dnieper_airborne_operation

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 14

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/25/2013 10:43:18 PM

STEF78

Posts: 2094
Joined: 2/19/2012
From: Versailles, France
Status: offline

Bozo likes original ways of fighting.

He often use airborne operations and did it against me during the last turns (spring 1943)

He also uses amphibious landing, and I'm sure he is digging under my lines to attack from behind.

Keep always your eyes open when you play against him.

And above all: attack him, counter attack him, bomb him... that's the best way to beat Bozo.

And now I will disclose a secret. He doesn't like "big cats"

My early 1943 panthers were a bad discover for him

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 15

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 1:09:40 AM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

But it really does seem that soviet airborne ops in the game are too effective. It is great to be innovative with tactics, but it is sort of pointless in an historical game if the capabilities are fictional.

It seems to me there are two problems. One, as everyone has noted, the units are too effective when they displace HQs. This is not realistic. Even REMFs will put up a fight if paras land on top of them (well, we at least told ourselves we would....). Also, just as HQs are sort of notional placeholders for some things, like support units and logistics elements, they also would represent some combat element such as replacement depots, and well security troops. And as rmonical pointed out, the abstractions in the game make it too unweildy and costly for the germans to have to use on-map units for this. It seems that instead of auto-displace, the airborne unit should have to conduct a combat against the unit, i would actually prefer that it was automatically displaced and disrupted itself. I also don't think that the rail-line should be broken instantly, it shouldn't happen until the following turn. Yes I know those troops could and did break lines quite quickly, but again the abstraction of the game means the german player is unfairly punished by not being able to counter these moves quickly. Historical ops did not put vast portions of the Axis OB out of supply for a week for instance.

The biggest problem I see is that sov AB units just use normal rifle squads! This is the worst problem. It means that they can replenish their establishment in almost no time. The reason why the soviets took more than a year to run large scale ops after the winter counter-offensive is that it is non-trivial to train paratroopers. I don't mean just pushing them out of a plane, but to reform after the jump, and conduct operations of those kinds is actually really difficult. There definately needs to be a very limited supply of air capable squads that the soviet player has to ration out carefully for important ops. Spamming jumps all over the map for harrassment purposes is totally gamey.

< Message edited by darbymcd -- 10/26/2013 1:13:08 AM >

(in reply to STEF78)

Post #: 16

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 1:20:55 AM

mannerheim4

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

These are all valid points. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep in mind that for every action there is a counter-action. Why is it that the Soviets have complete command of the sky? Where are the Axis fighters? Why are the airbases not scouted to figure out where the transports are coming from? Why are these airbases not bombed into oblivion? You don't want your RR Repair unit/HQ/Airbase to displace? Why don't you stack them with a combat unit. You need to protect a hex that is vital for supply? Then put a unit in that hex.

In my opinion an exploit is something you can't defend against. I'm not convinced that the mighty Luftwaffe is unable to fend off a couple dozen of transport planes. Shoot them down or bomb them on the ground and the party is over.

I don't think we need a house rule for that.

And we are back to the terrible airpower combat resolution and inability to wage offensive bombing campaigns against the enemy's airforce - except on June 22, 1941.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 17

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 1:23:51 AM

mannerheim4

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

The biggest problem I see is that sov AB units just use normal rifle squads! This is the worst problem. It means that they can replenish their establishment in almost no time. The reason why the soviets took more than a year to run large scale ops after the winter counter-offensive is that it is non-trivial to train paratroopers. I don't mean just pushing them out of a plane, but to reform after the jump, and conduct operations of those kinds is actually really difficult. There definately needs to be a very limited supply of air capable squads that the soviet player has to ration out carefully for important ops. Spamming jumps all over the map for harrassment purposes is totally gamey.

That's a great point. This is certainly something that needs to be changed - if paratroopers wanted to maintain their jump quals...

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 18

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 1:58:54 AM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

Where are the Axis fighters?

Here is air doctrine.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 19

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 4:01:52 AM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

He often use airborne operations and did it against me during the last turns (spring 1943)

And don't forget my absurd attempt to encircle your Finnish regiments in the North during 42. That was before I understood how to use the airborne feature. It will go in history as one of the greatest military blunders of all times.

But I sure learned a lot.

And maybe one day I will remember to support my amphibious troops with an airbase or put an airbase into Leningrad before it gets encircled. Still so much to learn.

< Message edited by Bozo_the_Clown -- 10/26/2013 4:12:59 AM >

(in reply to STEF78)

Post #: 20

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 4:02:36 AM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

Here is air doctrine.

Looking good. How many air groups are on night mission?

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 21

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 4:16:06 AM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

The biggest problem I see is that sov AB units just use normal rifle squads! This is the worst problem. It means that they can replenish their establishment in almost no time.

Very true. It's a simplification. Makes life a lot easier for the programmer I suppose.

In my game with rmonical I also noticed for the first time that some airborne brigades that surrendered are coming back as empty shells. This has happened three times so far. I'm not sure if that is suppose to happen.

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 22

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 6:44:18 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

These are all valid points. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep in mind that for every action there is a counter-action. Why is it that the Soviets have complete command of the sky? Where are the Axis fighters? Why are the airbases not scouted to figure out where the transports are coming from? Why are these airbases not bombed into oblivion? You don't want your RR Repair unit/HQ/Airbase to displace? Why don't you stack them with a combat unit. You need to protect a hex that is vital for supply? Then put a unit in that hex.

In my opinion an exploit is something you can't defend against. I'm not convinced that the mighty Luftwaffe is unable to fend off a couple dozen of transport planes. Shoot them down or bomb them on the ground and the party is over.

I don't think we need a house rule for that.

Because the game's air model is awful.
There is no point bombing airfields for the German (however, try bombing German airfields as the Soviet in 1941, and see what you can do - you can whittle Germany down to 100 fighters by the start of the mud turns, EASILY.

So your argument holds no realistic chance to stop the exploitation of the mechanics that you are practicing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Here is air doctrine.

Looking good. How many air groups are on night mission?

Interception for the German should be set between 200 and 300%
Ground attack and escort should be lower. I go with 40/30 respectively, because the Soviet air force isn't going do much damage to your bombers - again, because the air model is bad. It should be noted as well, that other German players have found that you really don't need ground attack support in 1941 anuyway, since the Soviets all have 1 or 2 CV. I turn interdiction OFF entirely, because it's completely unworth the fatigue it will cause your aircraft. Just let Ivan move however he sees fit.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 23

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 2:06:12 PM

swkuh

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline

Thanks, Bozo, the Glantz reference. Reading w/interest. Appreciate that no one has all the answers, though.

Good discussion, but I'm afraid that even WitE 2.0 will not address useful Axis rear area security. Like ideas of Axis sub-regiment unit breakdowns, but think it isn't suggested for WitE futures.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 24

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 3:17:33 PM

SigUp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Interception for the German should be set between 200 and 300%

Wouldn't that actually mean fewer flights? Of course every single flight would be stronger, but if the Soviet manages a few other missions to draw off those fighters, you end up with none in the air, once the Soviet flies in his transports.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 25

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 6:36:05 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

So your argument holds no realistic chance to stop the exploitation of the mechanics that you are practicing.

Heliodorus, please take a look at the combat results I just got from a test game which I fired up to prove you wrong. These are similar drops I'm doing in the game with rmonical. The first brigade is depleted and can't even displace anything. The second drop was not depleted. The losses, however, are so heavy that any SHC player would think twice doing stuff like this. He can still do it but not more then a couple of times.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 26

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 7:39:06 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

And here is an attempt to bomb an airfield with transports surrounded by airfields with fighters into oblivion. Just a quick test with some random bombing runs. The first screenshot is after the bombings and the second one before. BTW, also a large number of Soviet fighters were destroyed. I'm sure that someone who is willing to test this properly will get much better results.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 27

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/26/2013 8:59:26 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

This is to reiterate item 3 in the original post. The AI does not allocate construction unts to hexes cut by an air drop. This was during mud. In this case the airborne unit displaced the FBD which you can see re-entering on the other rail line. It was easier to do that than try to get back to the line it was working.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 28

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/27/2013 8:00:26 AM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

I'm sure that someone who is willing to test this properly will get much better results.

After a couple of hundred recon missions, I found some transports to attack. The results were underwhelming.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 29

RE: Rear area security and Soviet airborne - 10/27/2013 8:15:42 AM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

I also noticed for the first time that some airborne brigades that surrendered are coming back as empty shells.

Well why not. I guess that makes it safe to be even more prolific with the AB. Though they should stop coming back as of being destroyed in November and later. Do they show up in reinforcements? You get 15 more depleted brigades in December as reinforcements. I guess the returning AB makes this tactically dubious drop OK. Maybe you will explain the rationale.

I assume the drops are at night so the Luftwaffe does not intercept.