Questions on 3.2

[PMCN]

I was wondering if there was a way to prevent the computer from reinforcing a unit which you can not transfer in or out of? I had several annoying situations where I ended up with units stuck at 0 SL and when they were attacked the HQ they were attached to transfered troops to them...which strands perfectly good troops behind enemy lines and iritated me to no end. Also what is annoying is when a unit ends up in 0 SL but is adjacent to a unit in supply yet you can not even transfer between between them. The later is a fairly uncommon event but can happen and a rule where you can transfer between adjacent Armies/Korps regardless of supply state would be nice.

[Micha]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



1.) Its equally hard for the Soviets too. Neither side is getting an advantage here.

2.)Moving the whole Korps does not involved units changing command. The minimum requirement may be there because a corps that ends its movement at 0% is effectively simply not there. A minimum requirement is there so that when the unit is assigned to its new command, at least part of the unit is physically in its new location.

3.)but if we relax the rule, it means units can routinely move further in transfer movement than they could in operational or plot movement.

1.) That's absolutely true. It's just that I played several games as German recently.
I would guess that it is now very hard for the Russians to organise in 1941, because it takes them some time to go over 50% even in summer.

2.) Sorry, but I don't quite understand where the fundamental difference is between moving a division to a certain destination and transferring it there. Either the soldiers are able to march (and the officers to control the move) or they are not. Of course there will also be some difficulties with the change of command, but they will rather be something making the unit less efficient and could therefore be compensated by an additional readiness loss.

3.) But now they often cannot transfer at all.
If the required readiness for transfers were lowered but transferred divisions would suffer an extra readiness penalty so that they usually would end up with less readiness than necessary for further transfers, would that solve the problem?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Paul McNeely
I was wondering if there was a way to prevent the computer from reinforcing a unit which you can not transfer in or out of?

Disabling reinforcements. Very interesting......

This *might* be the next feature for WirHack. I'll look at this when I get some time.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Micha

I would guess that it is now very hard for the Russians to organise in 1941, because it takes them some time to go over 50% even in summer.

When I looked at units arriving in RVGK, they only needed one or two turns to get above 50%.

2.) Sorry, but I don't quite understand where the fundamental difference is between moving a division to a certain destination and transferring it there.

Moving it there in a corps does not involve the unit changing its chain of command. Transferring obviously involves a change of command.

If the required readiness for transfers were lowered but transferred divisions would suffer an extra readiness penalty so that they usually would end up with less readiness than necessary for further transfers, would that solve the problem?

Thats the general idea: make the readiness cost of transferring higher than it is now, so only one, and at most two, transfer jumps are possible. We'll wait and see if Arnaud is willing to do this.

[Micha]

I don't want to make this an endless debate, and I think we basically agree on a lot of points.
But just one more thing:

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn


Moving it there in a corps does not involve the unit changing its chain of command. Transferring obviously involves a change of command.

Yes, this is true, of course, and I never denied it. But I don't understand why low readiness should make changes in command impossible?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Micha

Yes, this is true, of course, and I never denied it. But I don't understand why low readiness should make changes in command impossible?

Well, readiness isn't just about how much supplies a unit has or its physical health, its also about unit cohesion, and the general health of its chain of command. Low readiness could show a unit with a damaged chain of command (missing/dead personnel) or communications problems (missing/destroyed radios and command vehicles etc,). I know, its a stretch, but Gary meant readiness to be more than supplies. He said later that it may have been a mistake to make readiness represent all those things, so it will be interesting to see what changes he makes for WIR3, assuming we ever see WIR3 in our lifetimes.

[Ranger-75]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



This is not a bug. The game prevents you from transferring units with less than 50% readiness. This restriction was expanded in v3.2 to include HQ to HQ transfers. If you want to blame someone for this, blame me, I was the one who brought this issue up with the beta team. I had been using this exploit to transfer new units out of STAVKA and RVGK all the way to Leningrad or Rostov in one turn by transfering units HQ to HQ, in a daisy chain. Because there was no minimum readiness level for transferrs between HQs, this exploit made it easy for the Soviets to rapidly spread their forces out all along the front.

Yes, that's right, I, the self proclaimed exploit expert, had been using from the beginning what I later had to admit was a cheat. This just proves anyone is susceptible to the power of the Dark Side....

Hi Ed, That's what I would call a "stupid human trick" no offense.

By the way folks, unless you are talking about a German Panzer, PanzerGrenadier or Soviet Tank / Armor / Mechanized / Motorized unit (around 10-15% of each sides total forces) these units only moved by MARCHING. Can you walk from Moscow to Odessa in 1 week, even if you didn't have to carry a pack and worry about planes shotting you up???

The horses were used to carry supplies, there were not enough to carry troops and the trucks were mostly devoted to the PZ/PZGD formations and some nondivisional artillery units (much to Guderian's displeasure).

Bottom line, these guys walked, not rode. Only the US and British armies were fully motorized. Therefore the min readiness rule is valid, even if I personally think its too restrictive.

The majority of 6 Armee marched from the border to Stalingrad, on their feet, where they died.

[Ranger-75]

I think an adjacent hex transfer capability regardless of readiness or SL should be allowed, but this is probably not within the code's capability.

[Ranger-75]

Why is it that new Soviet units arrive in RVGK at less than 50% readiness?:mad:

Do new German units arrive at OKW at less than 50% readiness???

It a unit arrives at 50% or more readiness than it should be able to transfer on its arrival turn. This should be correctable with one of the editors, simply make all units of both sides arrive at the same (say 80%) readiness.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Ranger-75
Why is it that new Soviet units arrive in RVGK at less than 50% readiness?:mad:

Do new German units arrive at OKW at less than 50% readiness???

It a unit arrives at 50% or more readiness than it should be able to transfer on its arrival turn. This should be correctable with one of the editors, simply make all units of both sides arrive at the same (say 80%) readiness.

Readiness is set by the game engine, as readiness over 99, minus 100, is the number of turns until the unit arrives. Both sides are treated equally in this. As rail transfer still works, units can still be railed out of their start HQ on the first turn of arrival, or will be able to after a couple of turns.