pre-Barbarossa micro-management

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

pre-Barbarossa micro-management

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 >> The War Room >> pre-Barbarossa micro-management

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 12/27/2015 11:34:08 PM

TomaszPudlo

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

Clearly The O.K.H. knew nothing of WitE's notion of combat value. Why else would they assign Totenkopf directly to 4th Panzer Group, when they could have assigned it to LVI Panzer Corps, thus increasing it's CV from 23 to 34? The admin cost for this is zero, by the way.

Any other micro-management ideas that will increase the CV?

< Message edited by TomaszPudlo -- 12/28/2015 12:36:22 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 12/28/2015 12:01:11 PM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

Put good leaders at Army Corps and reserve a few good ones with morale for OKH and Army Groups. That costs APs but a good leader increases your combat capabilities a lot. You can clearly see it if you play with the ALT CV campaign. Oh, and have your HQs in command reach of their attached units. And do not overload Army Corps.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)

Post #: 2

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/5/2016 8:01:24 AM

JTOJTO

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/5/2016
Status: offline

Hmm....the only unit with cv 23 is the 8th panzer division...how do you assign the totenkopf to the LVI Panzer ? Plz someone tell me... i`m a noob and i`m lost already :-(

(in reply to No idea)

Post #: 3

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/5/2016 9:44:27 AM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JTOJTO

Hmm....the only unit with cv 23 is the 8th panzer division...how do you assign the totenkopf to the LVI Panzer ? Plz someone tell me... i`m a noob and i`m lost already :-(

1. Select the division you want to reassing to a different HQ.

2. Look at the top right part of the unit info page. You will see some blue letters that tell you the HQ that unit is currently attached (in the case of Totenkopf it is the 4th Panzergruppe).

3. Click on the blue letters and then you will be able to choose a new HQ (LVI Panzerkorps, if you want a big gain in CV).

By the way, the gain in CV is not for attaching the division to a corps level HQ, but because the LVI commander is much better (in combat stats) than the 4th PG commander. If your 4th PG commander was a good general, there would be no need to attach the division to LVI Panzerkorps. Although it is difficult for an Army level HQ to keep all its units in command range (and if they arent in command range they "lose" a lot of CV)

< Message edited by No idea -- 1/5/2016 10:44:54 AM >

(in reply to JTOJTO)

Post #: 4

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/5/2016 9:52:51 AM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomaszPudlo

Clearly The O.K.H. knew nothing of WitE's notion of combat value. Why else would they assign Totenkopf directly to 4th Panzer Group, when they could have assigned it to LVI Panzer Corps, thus increasing it's CV from 23 to 34? The admin cost for this is zero, by the way.

Any other micro-management ideas that will increase the CV?

And do you know why armies keep divisions in reserve? I think WitE deals with this quite well these days.

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)

Post #: 5

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/5/2016 11:54:07 AM

JTOJTO

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/5/2016
Status: offline

ok I managed to assign the totenkopf to the LVI Panzer Corps, but I still don`t get how the the combat value system works. On the counter it says its attack value is 13, while in fights the combat value ranges up to 60 and the moified combat value even up to 250 sometimes, of course without support units. This is so complicated to understand...

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 6

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/5/2016 1:48:51 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JTOJTO

ok I managed to assign the totenkopf to the LVI Panzer Corps, but I still don`t get how the the combat value system works. On the counter it says its attack value is 13, while in fights the combat value ranges up to 60 and the moified combat value even up to 250 sometimes, of course without support units. This is so complicated to understand...

ok, the on-counter score is a sort of arbitrary valuation of the components of the unit. So if you add support units you may see it increase and so on. That is your baseline.

when you go into battle other factors come into play. First leadership. A German mot division will gain substantially from a well organised command structure as it picks it bonuses from different aspects of the leaders's scores. Second, additional support units are committed (from the HQ). Finally all these steps are subject to some random element and there is a luck element. Also the number of elements is important as are disruptions caused before the battle (air attack) or early in the battle (artillery) and terrain/fortification levels can have secondary effects.

Its very instructive to set up a battle, save the game, and run that battle say 10 times. Do you see any consistency? What will tend to happen is the on map cv may give you a clue. You'll see the results cluster into one of 3 patterns. You win most (say 8/10), you lose most (2/10) or its pretty even.

Take that understanding back to the game. As the German you won't win in 1941 if you organise battles where your winning chance is low, BUT, and this is important, you won't win if you are overcautious either. With the Soviets, sometimes attacking at low odds and getting lucky can be critical to your long term goals. I've done this a bit in my current AAR and while its not a sustainable strategy for particular periods of the war it can be effective.

Final suggestion, use the alt-cv scenario, that will mean the on-map score captures leadership etc so its a lot less random than it appears to you at the moment

< Message edited by loki100 -- 1/5/2016 2:49:58 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to JTOJTO)

Post #: 7

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/5/2016 10:47:40 PM

JTOJTO

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/5/2016
Status: offline

Thank you. I looked it up in the manual: The cv is multiplied by the factor 10 in combat, that`s why.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 8

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/6/2016 12:12:20 PM

TomaszPudlo

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomaszPudlo

Clearly The O.K.H. knew nothing of WitE's notion of combat value. Why else would they assign Totenkopf directly to 4th Panzer Group, when they could have assigned it to LVI Panzer Corps, thus increasing it's CV from 23 to 34? The admin cost for this is zero, by the way.

Any other micro-management ideas that will increase the CV?

And do you know why armies keep divisions in reserve? I think WitE deals with this quite well these days.

I can't afford a motorised division in reserve. I need Totenkopf to take Liepaja and Ventspils on turn one.

Here's another idea I've been playing with. What about emptying under-utilised German corps and transferring them to Romania? Take XXXVIII corps under von Chappuis. It only has one division. Transfer that division to I corps for a cost of one admin point and move XXXVIII corps by train to Romania. Now, von Chappuis has a leadership value of 4.8, which is sub-mediocre by German standards but almost Napoleonic by Romanian standards. (Antonescu himself has only 4.1) Then you assign the divisions in XI Romanian corps to von Chappuis. For a few admin points you've raised their combat value by 20%-30%. Has anyone tried this exploit?

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 9

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/6/2016 12:38:15 PM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

Its not really an exploit you get more German divisions as reinforcements as the campaign goes on. So usually you will need those un-needed corps HQs to command the new divisions arriving.

An yes putting Romanians under German command improves their CV its just a matter of finding any extra command space in German HQs.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)

Post #: 10

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/6/2016 9:04:57 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

Trouble is that you soon have more germans than can fit in your armies (sic) without these being over-stacked with the command penalties that brings to all units in that army. German armies only take 3 full corps and there are a few 'excess' corps HQs, not least because some armies start with 4.. NEVER EVER put axis allies into german HQs

. It just makes the problem worse. Where they start in German armies, esp. 11th Army, get them out.

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 11

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 8:14:55 AM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

Out of curiosity, has anybody tried to use Army level HQs only as Germany? (disbanding or simply emptying the Corps HQs). Not for the Panzerkorps, but I see more advantages than disadvantages in making foot Armees and forgetting about Armeekorps. Of course, I guess there must be something I am not having into account, or everybody would already use that strategy.

From my limited knowledge I will say that the only pro with attaching your units to Korps instead of Armees is that command range is easier to maintain.

On the other hand, an Armee (if it absorbs all the SUs of its initial korps) will have all the SUs you need (engineers, artillery, construction, stugs...) in big numbers and, more importantly, since you just have 8 foot armies, iirc, instead of 24 armeekorps, you will be able to give every one of them a really top commander. And, on top of that, you will very rarely get any combat penalty for fighting with units attached to different HQs.

what am I missing?

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 12

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 8:34:34 AM

morvael

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

You're missing penalty to leader rolls that apply to units attached to (for Axis) High Command, Army Group and Army HQs that are more than 5 hexes away from that HQ

. Also, support units will not be despatched to units outside of that 5 hexes range. I don't remember but there may also be a modest CV reduction (for High Command it's 20%). So you can use Army HQ in tactical role, but it will be slightly worse than Corps HQ and you won't be able to cover entire front line with effective command.

This was added specifically to prevent this kind of ahistorical optimization. Actually without that rule it was best to assign all units to OKH/STAVKA with top commander with superior stats and accept 20% CV penalty (because CV growth in combat due to superior commander more than compensated for this).

No penalty within 5 hexes is there to allow army-level reserves like they existed IRL (lowest CV penalty to help units under any corps assigned to that army), but actually people skip this, prefering to have best leader roll chances possible, and these are granted by being attached to corps, unless its leader is very bad.

(in reply to No idea)

Post #: 13

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 8:42:36 AM

morvael

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Trouble is that you soon have more germans than can fit in your armies (sic) without these being over-stacked with the command penalties that brings to all units in that army. German armies only take 3 full corps and there are a few 'excess' corps HQs, not least because some armies start with 4.. NEVER EVER put axis allies into german HQs. It just makes the problem worse. Where they start in German armies, esp. 11th Army, get them out.

With the initial GC41 setup I estabilished that I can put 3 artillery units (sometimes nebelwerfer), one pioneer, one LW mixed flak, one construction, one panzerjaeger/stug in every infantry corps HQ. Some armies had 3 corps of 4 divs, some had 4 corps of 3 divs. But it turned out that some of those support units withdraw soon, new corps commands arrive and have to be stuffed with SUs, and thus shortages of SUs developed. And there are not enough good (>5.0) leaders to put in every corps, unless you want to promote some GMs early and risk skill loss (and pay a lot of APs). So I reorganized all armies to have 3 corps of 4 divs. This reduces flexibility (as you split a unit, the corps becomes overloaded - but the 1942 9CP/corps will remove that problem, also I found this free capacity is mostly needed by panzer corps, but not by infantry corps), but results in some corps HQs to be freed of units to command (albeit light on SUs). These corps can be used to lead Axis allies or to assemble small battlegroups to be used with rear area security (important for motorized units to get 100% instead of 50% fuel needs, and operating alone under O.K.H. will not allow for that).

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 14

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 8:56:57 AM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

You're missing penalty to leader rolls that apply to units attached to (for Axis) High Command, Army Group and Army HQs that are more than 5 hexes away from that HQ . Also, support units will not be despatched to units outside of that 5 hexes range. I don't remember but there may also be a modest CV reduction (for High Command it's 20%). So you can use Army HQ in tactical role, but it will be slightly worse than Corps HQ and you won't be able to cover entire front line with effective command.

This was added specifically to prevent this kind of ahistorical optimization. Actually without that rule it was best to assign all units to OKH/STAVKA with top commander with superior stats and accept 20% CV penalty (because CV growth in combat due to superior commander more than compensated for this).

No penalty within 5 hexes is there to allow army-level reserves like they existed IRL (lowest CV penalty to help units under any corps assigned to that army), but actually people skip this, prefering to have best leader roll chances possible, and these are granted by being attached to corps, unless its leader is very bad.

Yes, but in the North (Leningrad) where all or most of your units are heaped (3 per hex), it isnt difficult to stay at 5 hexes or less. I agree than in the big open spaces of the South attaching CUs to Armees would mean that most CUs are more than 5 hexes away from their HQ, so, in the South, it doesnt seem to be a good idea. Not sure about the center. When attacking Moscow your units will again be heaped, so it might be a good idea. Of course, all these shuffling of units will cost a good amount of APs.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 15

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 9:19:49 AM

morvael

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

If you take LG, then you have to spread AGN thin, to concentrate on Moscow. There is not enough APs to do a full reorganization at this point. Also, there is limit of SUs sent by each HQ to combat, so I think you get to use more if they are spread around the corps. Which is I prefer to have 3 corps per army - middle ground - as little as possible so get best leaders and enough SUs, but still within historical parameters and rule requirements.

(in reply to No idea)

Post #: 16

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 12:12:12 PM

morvael

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

Clarification:
1) CV penalty applies only to units attached to High Command (-20%) and Army Group HQs (-10%). Being attached to Armies gives no penalty to CV.
2) Leader roll penalty kicks in when more than 4 hexes (not 5) from the too-high-level HQ. So they have a shorter range of effective command than a corps.
3) The drop is quite significant when you move away from Army HQ, sample Totenkopf SS Mot. Div. from 4th Panzer Group at start of GC 1941: morale 56.8% -> 49.0%, initiative 82.5% -> 72.5%, admin 93.8% -> 85.3%, mech 77.8% -> 67.1%, infantry 81.5% -> 71.2%. You don't want this. See in Alt CV how your expected strength in combat drops due to that (from 25 to 20).
4) Assisting that army corps in combat by a unit attached to parent army results in a small -3% CV penalty. Being part of a sister corps results in a -6% CV penalty.

To sum it up, as Axis:
- always use corps HQs, but strive to use minimum possible in order to maximize SUs and best leaders per corps
- assignment to army HQ is OK for limited number reserves, but make sure that those units stay close to their parent HQ (within 4 hexes)
- keep army HQ with reserves close to the main hotspot along that army's front

< Message edited by morvael -- 1/7/2016 1:13:38 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 17

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 12:34:31 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

If it was up to me I'd reduce leader ratings for directly attached units by one for every command level that is bypassed. So for example an army commander would be -1 and army group/front commanders would be -2 when commanding a division. This rule would have the advantage of being universally applicable and so Soviet army commanders would suffer a -1 penalty through most of 41/42 until Soviet corps units start forming in 1942/43. This crisis of Soviet leadership would I think accurately reflect history.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)

Post #: 18

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 12:59:45 PM

morvael

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

I think Soviet ratings already reflect their poor command & control. The same applies to initiative penalty for corps-sized combat units (and bonus to regimental-sized). The same happens with stack-point based penalty during attacks. And their front-level reserves (should they decide to use them) would have a -13% CV penalty instead of -3%.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 19

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/7/2016 1:22:18 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Soviet command ratings are poorer than German for sure, but not in a way that adequately reflects the strain of commanding too many units without the help of subordinate HQs. My system would reflect that strain for both Soviet and German commanders. Take away the German corps HQs and the penalties would be obvious and realistic. No need for special rules.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 20

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 1/8/2016 12:56:57 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomaszPudlo

Clearly The O.K.H. knew nothing of WitE's notion of combat value. Why else would they assign Totenkopf directly to 4th Panzer Group, when they could have assigned it to LVI Panzer Corps, thus increasing it's CV from 23 to 34? The admin cost for this is zero, by the way.

Any other micro-management ideas that will increase the CV?

I leave it under 4th to pocket units for 2 turns then put it under LVI for free.

The dead 40+k russias killed easly because they are surrounded is much better then C&C.

WitE during 41 and 42 is about pocketing Russian units. They are easyer to KIA and you KIA all of them for little loses.

As Germany if you have a poor turn 1-4 your done for the war. You will never recover.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)

Post #: 21

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 2/20/2016 12:11:00 PM

TomaszPudlo

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

1) Pour a dram of Lagavulin.

2) Open the editor.

3) Give yourself a thousand AP and save.

4) Open the the scenario with the extra AP.

5) Move all AA regiments from German cities to the O.K.H.

6) Reassign 9th Army to Army Group North.

7) Replace Kesselring with Bulowius. Replace von Kluge with Kesselring. Replace Halder with von Kluge as chief of the O.K.H.

8) Replace all commanders under 5.4, including army level. Use savescumming. Once you reload, the AP will fall to 500. It's therefore important you move the AA regiments and reassign 9th Army prior to replacing the commanders.

9) Transfer all recon aircraft from Luftwaffe airbases to army airbases. Colour code all Luftwaffe airbases containing level bombers green (0,200,0), containing dive bombers dark grey (100,100,100) and containing transport planes dark green (0,100,0). The fighters stay white, except for the fighter bombers. Change their mission type to bomber and mark them green. That way you'll know exactly where you have your stuff.

10) Don't hesitate to move your airbases closer to the border. The following airbases should be hit with dive bombers: Siaulai, Kaunas, Vilnius, Lapy, Sudovaya Vishnya and Lvov. That way you'll be picking ripe cherries. ("Vishnya" is Russian for Cherry.) Use your level bombers for long-range raids. The bases around Kiev are especially rich in cherries.

11) Start sipping your Lagavulin.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 22

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 2/20/2016 1:07:08 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

You left out moving all construction units back to AG HQs or OKH and sorting out some of the other SU mess before you reload as part of stage 5

_____________________________

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)

Post #: 23

RE: pre-Barbarossa micro-management - 2/20/2016 3:17:08 PM

swkuh

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

You guys are no fun... this game plain vanilla teaches schadenfreude to the German player. (Excuse my Deutsch if needed.)

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 24