Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

mktours
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:18 pm

Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by mktours »

I remember I read somewhere in the forum that if a German division put under the direct command of an army, there would be some leader checking punishment. But the official statement didn’t say anything about it. Could Morvael make a clear explanation of it? Thanks!
I often put divisions under the direct command of Guderian, and since the Pz divisions are often attacking toward splitting ways, it would be realistic for some divisions being taken care of by the army leader. Model, for example, often take charge of divisions when he is the army leader, even so when he is the army group leader. I think the old rules is fine, as long as it is within 5 hexes, then there should be not punishment for a army leader to command a division, if the army is not overloading with command capacity. Using the command capacity as limit is more reasonable.
If the rules punish such deployment, then it would be a big loss for good leaders to be promoted to army leader. And downplay what Guderian, who often spends his time on the front, would do as a good Pz leader.
The effect of exceptional leaders like Guderian is already being downplayed a bit in the game, indeed, without the leadership of Guderian, it is hard to imagine how PZ group 2 could achieve in the 1941 campaign. He certainly wasn't just a man sitting in the HQ office and answering telephones of corps commanders.
Gabriel B.
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:44 am

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by Gabriel B. »

there are several divisions atached to army to begin with :

TOTENKOPF , LSAH, 25 MOT , 16TH MOT, LEHR BDE, 22 AIRLANDING ,72, 73, 253 INF .

I also use army command as another corps command btw.



swkuh
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by swkuh »

I'm not a rule reader, although I am quite familiar with how the game works. My naïve play says that Corps HQs are more effective when they are closer to the front. I keep them very close. Army & Group commands I keep much further back, but closer than historical records seem to show. By following this discipline I get good communications and controls across the fronts. Conservative approach.

Be hard to quantify these findings (I can't,) but risk of losing "runaway" mobile forces keeps me conservative.
mktours
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:18 pm

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by mktours »

I believe all the GHC are putting some units, especially motorize ones, under the direct command of army HQ, as there are simply not enough corps HQ. I don't understand why changing this rule, the leader checking system seems to be changed a lot, if so, a detail explanation should be made public, otherwise how could we play the 1.07.11 version? We should know how it works to make good judgement.
ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

there are several divisions atached to army to begin with :

TOTENKOPF , LSAH, 25 MOT , 16TH MOT, LEHR BDE, 22 AIRLANDING ,72, 73, 253 INF .

I also use army command as another corps command btw.



User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by morvael »

The problem is that first HQ is not subject to range penalty. Perhaps the issue could be cured not by giving penalty to direct attachment to high level HQs but by enabling range penalties even for first HQs, farther than 5 hexes away.

The penalty on army level is relatively minor, while on the other hand they are able to command units in a very large radius now.
Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by Toidi »

ORIGINAL: morvael

The problem is that first HQ is not subject to range penalty. Perhaps the issue could be cured not by giving penalty to direct attachment to high level HQs but by enabling range penalties even for first HQs, farther than 5 hexes away.

The penalty on army level is relatively minor, while on the other hand they are able to command units in a very large radius now.

One problem with the introduced penalties is that when building forts, units attached to high command are totally ineffective due to leaders checks involved. In my view HQ should be able to directly command units digging trenches without much penalty... Perhaps the penalties in game for mixed command (i.e. -20% cv etc) should be increased for any unit directly attached to higher HQ instead of the penalty on the general's stats (say up to -50% or even -70% for the top-level command, to overcome any possible benefits when fighting).

I also disagree with the penalties experienced by German units attached directly to armies - again, I can live with a penalty as % of cv, but penalties with leadership coefficients badly influences the reserve activation (as reserves should be attached to the army, so a single mobile unit can support all corps at dense frontline).

I would suggest that the army should be able to have 2-3 divisions attached to it directly without any penalties on leadership, with more divisions attached directly incurring some penalties. In no case the unit ability to build forts should be much affected by being attached to any level of HQ (currently units attached to OKH just refuse to build forts, I guess with STAVKA it is similar).

In my opinion the current penalties for attaching units to army HQ instead of corps are already quite substantial as they effectively translate 7-tish leader into 6-tish leader (or leader with mix of 6 and 7 into mix of 5 and 6), which is becoming real issue when combined with the cv penalty for using different hq for reserves (and it additionally affects reserve activation quite a bit).
rmonical
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm
Location: United States

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by rmonical »

I think with the current modification to penalize Axis direct attachment to armies but not Soviet we will see a subtle but significant advantage accrue to the Soviets in regards to reserve activation. This will be in effect for the entire war. There is simply no justification for penalizing the Axis here. The issue is not the quality of Axis command and control - it is that Soviet command and control in the early war is too good. What saves the Axis are the supply rules.
Gabriel B.
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:44 am

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by Gabriel B. »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Perhaps the issue could be cured not by giving penalty to direct attachment to high level HQs but by enabling range penalties even for first HQs, farther than 5 hexes away.

I support that .
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by morvael »

Good, but how to prevent Axis players from disbanding their corps in late war? I view it as extremely a-historical.
mktours
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:18 pm

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by mktours »

morvael, thanks for reply.
I didn't know that first HQ is not subject to range penalty. The units need to within 5 hexes to get supply and HQ support in battles, anyway.
I am surprise that this rule change has not been explained to the players with the release of the 1.07.11 version. Why keep the players in the dark? This issue ought to be addressed by making a official explanation of all the rule changes, otherwise we players are making misjudgment all the time in our games, that is not fun.
Whether this change is right or not is another issue, but the players need to be informed of what has been changed.
ORIGINAL: morvael

The problem is that first HQ is not subject to range penalty. Perhaps the issue could be cured not by giving penalty to direct attachment to high level HQs but by enabling range penalties even for first HQs, farther than 5 hexes away.

The penalty on army level is relatively minor, while on the other hand they are able to command units in a very large radius now.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by morvael »

Range penalty and first HQ exception is listed in the manual (11.3.2. Command Range Modifier).

I have prepared a very thorough explanation of how the leader rolls work in .11, but it didn't make into patch readme as was deemed too detailed and too technical and too long. But I was open about the change and stated that it's there a few times on the forum so that those who come here would know. In patch .12 it will be possible to see a % chance of making each leader roll on the unit supply details screeen, that should help in making good decisions.
mktours
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:18 pm

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by mktours »

I think with the corps HQ is adding another layer of leader check, which is a good thing. If a GHC disbands corps HQ, it is sacrificing something in itself.
ORIGINAL: morvael

Good, but how to prevent Axis players from disbanding their corps in late war? I view it as extremely a-historical.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by morvael »

Some will say not much, because they lack 8-9 skill leader to fill all corps, but have enough for armies :)
mktours
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:18 pm

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by mktours »

That would be a very good improvement, thanks for your work,[:)]
ORIGINAL: morvael

Range penalty and first HQ exception is listed in the manual (11.3.2. Command Range Modifier).

I have prepared a very thorough explanation of how the leader rolls work in .11, but it didn't make into patch readme as was deemed too detailed and too technical and too long. But I was open about the change and stated that it's there a few times on the forum so that those who come here would know. In patch .12 it will be possible to see a % chance of making each leader roll on the unit supply details screeen, that should help in making good decisions.
rmonical
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm
Location: United States

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by rmonical »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Good, but how to prevent Axis players from disbanding their corps in late war? I view it as extremely a-historical.

I agree. I think the appropriate solution is to reward the use of corps rather than penalize the Axis use of armies. Applying the Army command effect uniformly to both sides would be exactly one such mechanism that would keep the corps in the game. I simply don't understand the reasoning behind applying to the Army direct command modifier to the Axis only.
Denniss
Posts: 8875
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by Denniss »

So you suggest a higher chance of successful leader rolls in corps HQ with reduced chances at higher HQ, the latter for both sides ?
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by morvael »

Because Soviet armies are not equals of Axis armies... they are smaller (CP limit). They are an Army in name only, and more like an Axis Corps on steroids. Something similar exists with Soviet Regiments with 21 AFVs compared to German Battalions with 40 AFVs or Soviet Tank corps of 5000-9000 men compared to Axis Panzer Divisions of 16000 men - it's only Soviet bombastic naming and we must deal with that properly. That's why the desired level of command was set to Army for Soviets and Corps for Axis. Soviet Corps are disbanded automatically, and player has no chance to stop that. Later on they are recreated as combat units instead of HQs. Soviet is forced to poor command & control, whereas the Axis has choice. But that choice can't result in finding out that corps is useless and better used for manpower while best leaders concentrated at army level.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by morvael »

Let's assume there is no high level attachment penalty (2 in case of armies) and there is instead a range penalty at all levels, for distance greater than 5, divided by appopriate value (1 for Corps, 2 for Armies, 3 for AG, 4 for HC). What is the frontage of a typical German army? Wouldn't the players leave corps HQs to command far flanks of the army while the center would be directly attached to the army itself? What would be the number of penalized units? 0? 1-5? 5-10? More? What would be the typical penalty then?

Part of the problem is in the lack of "black boxing" property of various command levels (unlike in some other games), where a corps would be able to hold 8 points of units, but would present itself to the superior HQ with a constant value (of 4 or 6). Disbanding corps in such case causes loss of command capacity. In this system not much, as the army must still be able to control what the sum of it's corps can.
rmonical
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm
Location: United States

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by rmonical »

This is a weird discussion for me. We are talking about an army that recently executed most of its O6 and above going through a massive reorganization having, as of August 1941, better Army level command and control than the Germans. If one thinks about that single August 1941 design decision, then maybe a solution will emerge that passes the reasonableness test. As Morvael points out, the effect is small. It would just be nice if it went in the right direction. In the 1980s in Europe, we took for granted we would operated inside the Warsaw Pact decision loop at all levels of command. This was facing a command and control structure that had been matured for decades. I believe it was the same in throughout the 1940s.

The problem is we have a design today that gives the Soviets what I consider to be amazing command and control capability for 1941. As Soviet, I routinely re-assign an Army commander, assign a number of divisions under that army commander, launch a coordinated counterattack, and then achieve some level of dispersion, all in the course of a single week. I do not believe that ever happened historically for the Soviets. We have had a similar discussion for reserve activation.

On the other hand, the Soviets do not need to be further handicapped in 1941. It is the Axis which have what I consider to be the a-historic advantage in that period (logistics, pro-attack bias, and instant riflemen). I believe numerous subtle design decisions start to stack up against the Axis after the summer campaign (mostly related to small production numbers, production inflexibility, and the element swap logic). I believe we have yet to see the 75mm AT gun ever appear in its historical numbers in a campaign game - the design simply will not allow it.

As you know, as the war goes on, the German divisions are divisions in name only so the size inflation goes both ways. In addition, one has to keep in mind the massive Soviet advantage in regiment and below support units which do not count against CP limits.
rmonical
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm
Location: United States

RE: Questions regarding the leader check punishment in 1.07.11 version

Post by rmonical »

I think we have two issues. The ability of the staffs to do staff work and the ability of the staffs to control units more than 50 miles away from an admittedly arbitrary location. I would like to see a design that does not conflate the two. I think there should be a range penalty but I think that is a separate issue from overall staff effectiveness.
Because Soviet armies are not equals of Axis armies... they are smaller (CP limit).

I loaded up the 43-45 Campaign game in the scenario editor and picked units at random (west side of Kursk).

German
XIII Corps 39000/539/18
2d Army: 98000/1221/45

Soviet
60th Army: 73000/1239/67

Admittedly small sample.

In my 18 CP army I will get 4 infantry corps (12 infantry divisions), plus 12 regimental support units - 3 per corps, plus 2 brigades or a division, plus all of the Army level support units. I count 24 + 12 + 2 = 38 CP before we get to the Army level support units. Admittedly, the unit TOEs are smaller than their German equivalent.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”