1943 German manpower

[Bob12]

Something I touched on earlier in another thread, but it is my understanding that in 1943 the Germans were able to mobilize a much larger than number of replacements (albeit of lower quality) than in previous years as they geared up for a total war, to the extent that the Wehrmacht reached it's highest strength in the theater in summer 1943.

I looked at the game manual and it says that the german manpower modifier is 8, the same as in 42 and lower than in 41. I may be missing something with hiwis or captured manpower, but I would have thought the number would be larger than previous years. Is this intentional/working as designed?

[loki100]

its hard to answer this without crossing over into things best not discussed.

My understanding is by 1943/44 the Germans decided to make more use of *involuntary* labour and this allowed a shake out from industry, domestic service and agriculture into the military. This actually led to other problems. In part, to be brutal, it takes just that bit more food to feed someone to work rather than let them slowly die and by 1943 Germany already had a food shortage.

So this actually worsened the overall food situation. The other problem was it actually took more of their manpower to guard these people than when you have them locked up behind barbed wire. So the amount of net manpower was relatively small.

Also in game terms, a lot of that extra manpower went to the west, so the lower multiplier sounds ok.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To the wider points you and Chaos45 are making. Yes the game engine produces too few losses. I doubt that will change this side of WiTE2 so its something to put up with. You're not going to see the 6,000 man rifle divisions that were the norm for the Soviets from 1943 onwards and so on.

In game, the Germans will face some manpower problems in 1942 - not as crippling as in reality but its a constraint.

[Bob12]

ORIGINAL: loki100

To the wider points you and Chaos45 are making. Yes the game engine produces too few losses. I doubt that will change this side of WiTE2 so its something to put up with. You're not going to see the 6,000 man rifle divisions that were the norm for the Soviets from 1943 onwards and so on.

In game, the Germans will face some manpower problems in 1942 - not as crippling as in reality but its a constraint.

You may be right but I am cautiously optimistic, moravel+crew have been very industrious in their work thus far. In any case we'll have to see the effect of the next patch on the situation first.

[Bob12]

ORIGINAL: loki100

its hard to answer this without crossing over into things best not discussed.

My understanding is by 1943/44 the Germans decided to make more use of *involuntary* labour and this allowed a shake out from industry, domestic service and agriculture into the military. This actually led to other problems. In part, to be brutal, it takes just that bit more food to feed someone to work rather than let them slowly die and by 1943 Germany already had a food shortage.

So this actually worsened the overall food situation. The other problem was it actually took more of their manpower to guard these people than when you have them locked up behind barbed wire. So the amount of net manpower was relatively small.

Also in game terms, a lot of that extra manpower went to the west, so the lower multiplier sounds ok.

But in a period of less than six months their oob in the east went from ~2.3M to ~3.5M which is a pretty large change, whatever the method they did manage to make a larger than usual number of troops available for the eastern front, at least for the first 6 months of the year. It would seem to me the game manpower doesn't currently account for this.

[chaos45]

Well currently the Germans will still have an OOB of 3.5-4M in early 1943 so no reason to increase it more.

[morvael]

It's hard to track German manpower with all these arrivals (and withdrawals), which give (and take) "free" manpower. With the new disband feature introduced in .05 (so as to punish the Germans less if they didn't lose troops in encirclements like their historical counterparts did), German manpower may find itself in best shape ever, and that's not something I would really like to see, unless the new cranked up losses from combat will help. But they may not be enough, especially if more ammo will not be granted to units, so they have the resources to fire more times in combat. And increasing ammo consumption will result in bigger supply problems in 1941, and will tax already drained HI factories to unknown extent (especially for the Soviets). So as you see a change in one place may result in problems in another place, as these are all interconnected.

[M60A3TTS]

I don't get it. The German players have almost never suffered from getting surrounded in this game, and you want them rewarded for this. The Soviets in this game don't have the wherewithal to surround the Germans to any extent so in fact you are giving them a freebie. It seems that the active player base is getting very little input into these kind of changes although it certainly seems that Pelton fed you this one.

[morvael]

It was Denniss' pet project, he asked a long time for this feature. And it's logically grounded, so I agreed. Unit that was destroyed in combat and not rebuilt was represented as unit withdrawing with all equipment, even if at full strength. Removing withdrawal altogether wasn't feasible, so at least unit will dump it's equipment to the pool before disappearing.

[chaos45]

M60- its an issue history has taught German players lol.

A German player even with limited Fog of war knows about what soviet capabilities are due to 20/20 hindsight this was something the Germans didnt know historically.

One way some board games have addressed this issue of the unknown/lack of giving Germans the perfect picture is to give Soviet players a limited number of operational surprise turns themselves to use when they see fit.

One board game gave the Soviets effectively 3 Operational surprise turns- to represent 1st winter blizzard counterattack, Stalingrad encirclement, and the follow on destruction of the Italians/hungarians.

Dont know if WiTE could implement a surprise turn for the soviets as it couldnt be a set turn-Germans would prep for it, would have to be an activated thing by the soviet player. Also to not give the Soviets the perfect plan either would make it almost like an invasion thing, as most of these operations took the Soviets several weeks if not months to prepare for. So say the Soviet play must activate their surprise offensive 2-4 turns in advance and then bam on that turn the soviets get lower Zoc/enemy terrain movement penalties higher German disruption an such.

This might even force German players to leave some armor reserves to counter these surprise offensives scattered around the front kinda like historical lol.

The Soviets werent as completely incompetent as alot of ppl like to think if you only read German sources. In general to me the war follows these principles-

Tactical lvl- here we are talking company/battalion/regimental/divisional level- Germans typically outperform Soviet leadership on a consistent basis until probably later 1943 on. Even then Certain German units maintain this edge to the very end.

Operational lvl- Corps/Army/Front/AG level- in 1941/early 1942 the Germans outperform Soviets...however by end of 1942- parity -Soviets begin to understand the deep battle philosphy and have the capability to execute it- thus stalingrad and the failure of Operations Mars. By 1943/1944 the Soviets are simply superior to the Germans in both capability and understanding of operational surprise. Also OKH/OKW doesnt help the situation by not allowing German commanders any real freedom of action against soviet operations. Bagration was actually a larger defeat than stalingrad for the Germans in all reality in the summer of 1944 massive operational success and surprise achieved. It wasnt a pure numbers thing the Germans had the forces available on the eastern front they were just in the wrong positions and they had no idea the attack was coming the Soviets just like stalingrad did a masterful job of concealing true troop concentrations and operational intentions.

Strategic lvl- High Command- Germany failed completely and utterly at this the entire war. Here is where the Soviets understood the war, had a better plan, and executed their plan with complete and utter ruthlessness to success. The German high command dithered on exactly what the main plan was and how they could actually achieve it, and never fully grasped the capabilities that would be needed to actually win.

Maybe a good solid thought for WITE2.

[Denniss]

Multiple land units had their withdrawal changed to disband if:
1) They were destroyed in battle, rebuilt and not used in East
2) They were merged with/into other/larger units which are present in the east and are considered reforming in the East
3) They were disbanded historically excluding some disbands in late 44/45

Multiple land units have been disabled if they only appeared as a new incarnation of an existing unit and are considered to reform in the East.

Multiple air units had their withdrawal removed if the only reason was to re-appear under a new name.
Multiple air units have been disabled if they only appeared as new incarnation of an existing unit.

Some examples:

Code: Select all

 3rd motorized div - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in the East, rebuilt via renaming an existing division and used in Italy/West)
 16th motorized div - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in the East, rebuilt and used in the West)
 XIV Panzer Corps - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt and used in Italy)
 XXXIV Corps - withdraw changed to disband (merged with XXXV Corps in January 42), date changed to mid January 42
 26th Infantry Division - withdraw changed to disband (almost destroyed and disbanded summer 44, rebuilt autumn 44 as Volksgrenadier Division and used in the West)
 62nd Infantry Division - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in the East 8/44, rebuilt autumn 44 as Volksgrenadier Division and used in the West)
 71st Infantry Division - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt early 43 and used in Italy)
 43rd Sturm Pionier Bn - withdraw changed to disband (became part of Großdeutschland div which is reformed in the East)
 51st and 52nd Panzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband; they were re-integrated into the Panzer Division the personnell was taken from
 60th Pionier Bn - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt and used elsewhere)
 93rd Heavy Jagdpanzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband,(largely destroyed in 8/44, reformed and used in West)
 I/109th Gun Bn - withdraw changed to disband (became part of Großdeutschland div which is reformed in the East)
 271/272/274, 276th-278th motorized Flak Bn - withdraw changed to disband - became organic components of Panzer division
 501st heavy panzer Bn - remove withdrawal, was reformed as 424th heavy panzer Bn and stayed in the East
 529th Jagdpanzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband (was disbanded 6/42)
 560th Panzerjäger Bn - withdraw changed to disband, moved forward to 9/42 (became part of 27th Panzer div which arrives in the East as shell)
 611th Jagdpanzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband, disband moved forward to June 43 (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt as company of 655th Heavy PzJ Bn which arrives in 7/43)
 

[M60A3TTS]

So Denniss, your logic is that the eastern unit turns all its manpower and equipment over to the OstHeer and a shell unit of the same designation appears in the west that OB West or its equivalent in Italy is expected to flesh out with its own equipment and manpower. Do I have that right?

[chaos45]

No these were all units that were historically effectively destroyed on the eastern front.

Then historically what happened is the survivors- as there were alot of WIA moved home and flown out of the pocket during the fighting were used to be the cadre of most of these rebuilt divisions.

It makes some sense, but not alot of sense in that the German army is already artificially much stronger than it should be as the war progresses. Im wondering why attrition losses were reduced several patches ago if you read the patch notes-was awhile back in the patches, as that might have something to do with it.

For all logical purposes its a valid fix. Going forward though hopefully .05 increase losses a fair amount but from morvaels comments im not sure thats really going to happen as he seems skeptical. I dont care if losses are completely historical but they should be a close approximation to be realistic.

[Denniss]

Units sent to other fronts still withdraw and don't disband.

[morvael]

There was a huge increase in losses of AFV due to combat, way above historical in 1.08 due to unlocking of secondary squad weapons and heat weapons in general. By adding repair after move we reduced the problem somewhat, but losses were still greater than IRL, so they are going to be nerfed again. But I think losses in infantry are too small and could be raised. Thus there would be higher expenditure of manpower, but smaller of specialized equipment. If raising rate of fire is not a solution due to ammo constrains, there perhaps easing to obtain a kill/damage result on soft targets is in order.

edit: I do agree with chaos45's assessment of tactical/operational/strategic levels of (in)competence for both sides.

The problem with balancing WitE is lack of real feedback. To get a good (from statistical POV) sample, there should be a hundred of you guys playing WitE PBEM 24/7, giving us results from finished campaigns using latest version on weekly basis. As it happens it takes months (or years) to finish a campaign, so they are not very useful for balancing (started many patches back they do not relate to current meta). And AIvsAI tests are good for testing stability but are not representing what happens in PBEM games at all. AI can only push back enemy and requires many tricks to work. PvP games work in a different way and expose different problems.

[chaos45]

Well currently me and Pelton just finished up April 1942 last turn- German OOB was 3.7M mine was 6.7M so by historical standards Germans about 1 million stronger than historical and Soviets about 500-600k stronger at this point.

Leningrad will fall most likely 1st week of May....I have my own complaints on the combat system about how easily it fell when it was basically the best defense the Soviets can possibly mount in 1942...Lvl 3 fort in woods with 3x 50+ morale soviet divisions w/reserve rifle BDE committed and about the best soviet general and still lost every fight on first deliberate German assault- in March even----really? German engineers are way Overpowered- dropped every fort from 3 to 0 everytime- I can understand a one level drop but 3 levels in one assault is abit much to believe.

Also I have inflicted almost 1.1M axis casualties...so inflicted under historical....but even then something is very wrong in the game as historical should be around 1.4-1.5M and German OOB by 1942 campaign start is 2.5M.....So I only inflicted approx 500k fewer losses than historical yet his OOB is still 1.2M higher than historical...points to big issue somewhere in that the German army is getting far more troops than they ever had on hand or the historical data for summer 1942 is completely wrong in the game.

Easier hit/kill vs soft targets is probably a good choice if it can be done. Artillery usually did its lethal work on soft targets.

[Blubel]

A small point, but the Germans in the 42 campaign have actually 2.7mil men, as they have 100k in pool and OOB is about 2.58mil.
Also, in the Stalingrad-Berlin campaign, the Germans start with about 3.17mil men. As you almost don't get any replacements upto Nov 42 this is not possible in the 42 campaign. And since Stalingra-Berlin is the latest campaign, I would argue that it was the best researched.

[chaos45]

Very well could be, however from doing some searching this guys website seems to be pretty accurate as it also reflects alot of the same numbers Glantz uses for Soviets in his books as well.

You can see at no point does the German army/SS go over 3M.....also as you follow you can see losses for both sides are much higher.

Lower losses for the Soviet side, this explains a 6-7M OOB in 1942- even in my game vs Pelton were I took some very heavy losses Im only at around 4.2-4.3M total losses if I remember right in May42- historical losses- should be closer to 7M...which going completely historical shows the game isnt giving the Soviets as many replacements as they historicaly generated, but nor are they losing as many men so somewhat balances itself- as completely historical- your talking just based on our game statistics compared to historical I should have an army of about 8-8.5M men, and my army in the game will be closer to 7M by June. Also lower Soviet losses are most likely explained by Soviet players not launching suicidal attacks constantly on German lines. Also shows Soviet industry is far underperforming as you couldnt even arm all those extra millions by game industry levels.

The ever growing German OOB is the mystery.....as they never historically reached 3M+ men ever by these charts. they come very close in 1943 at almost 3M. Now from doing more research these numbers dont include the luftwaffe air units manpower so would have to see how many men the game is giving for all the Luftwaffe HQs. As it only included elements under army/SS command. So Luftwaffe data is the main outstanding number needed since they are included in the Game OOB numbers.

However I do believe these numbers include German units conducting operations in northern finland/northern norway against murmansk- forces not included in the WiTE game. So when you factor in 50-100k German ground troops in the numbers that arent inlcuded in WiTE Im not so sure the luftwaffe numbers are going to modify the totals that massively. As alot of the Luftwaffe strength was back in Germany/Europe providing training/admin/logistics trains to the actual luftwaffe airbases at the front. These are eventually combed out in late 1942/early 1943 and sent to the heer as the luftwaffe feld divisions.

Even when lower overall German losses are taken into account it doesnt explain the 3.5M-4M OOB the Germans are maintaining. Total german losses thru mid 1942- 1.3M+ historically and you end up with an OOB of 2.6M. So even best case if the Germans take super low losses your talking OOB of around 3M men in mid 1942. An that would be best case you avoid the worst of the blizzard losses and have a gravy winter, which I dont think will happen most of the time- even in me and peltons game I was regularly successfully attacking his lines 10-20 times per week. Again have to check how many men all those luftwaffe bases are supplying in the OOB numbers. If I get some time will do that tonight.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... front.html

[chaos45]

In reply to Hitman on the Korsun battle/pocket.

You must have read some very different history books than I have on that battle- the encirclement was hotly contested and the relief force couldnt fight its way into the pocket is why they had to assault the Soviets from inside the pocket with virtually no armor support left. In the end they lost almost 100% of all thier heavy equipment getting out with heavy losses amongst the troops that did successfully reach german lines through a very thin opening they had managed to open in the soviet lines to reach the relief forces.

2-3 week battle- losses: (say three weeks of combat = average of 20k+ losses per week)
Glantz-German -----55,000 killed and wounded, 18,000 prisoners
Other source German--Inside the pocket: 31.000 killed and wounded 16.500 captured
Beside the pocket: 27.000 killed and wounded 1.500 captured

Soviet-24,286 killed or missing and 55,902 wounded and sick (average over 3 weeks= 25k+ losses per week)

this is one battle taking place over the entire eastern front...many others were going on at the same time-----easily points that at times of high intensity of operations you are talking 50-100k losses should be standard. Also just read up on this battle the fighting was extremely intense from the accounts I have read, with the end result being an entire German army effectively destroyed...yes 30k men got out alive but just men doesnt make a fighting force. Was actually one of the arguments for why to keep the 6th Army in STalingrad because at least there they could fight, as breaking out of the pocket they would have had to leave almost all their heavy weapons behind and most likely just escape with manpower and the few mobile vehicles they had remaining fuel for. Effectively no matter what happened in a historical sense 6th Army was going to be destroyed as an effective military force either in the pocket or escaping from it....now escaping would mean eventually more manpower to rebuild the army but Germany needing fighting strength at that moment not later--an that was the one thing 6th Army did do was tie down Soviet units that otherwise could have been moving on Rostov/Kharkov, and most likely one of the big reasons they were left to die in place for the big picture.

As to Soviet underutilization of forces- dont view it as thus- more like Soviet sacrifice of troops on a regular basis. Once the Soviets thought they had an edge in a sector they attacked thus their much higher level of losses to themselves than in the game...however you cant do this in the game because the game is shorting the Soviets 2M men in just the first 12 months...you attack repeatedly every single turn even losing and you would grind yourself down since your lacking all of those replacements.

An i agree the Soviets need to lose more men to, alot more....but if you make say Soviet losses a x4 over current then you will probably also have to add in more historical levels of Soviet replacements---around the 150-200k Replacements extra per month that arent currently in the game.

[Callistrid]

The german gives manpower from locations, and still gets from new units. So they receive 2x more men. I believe that is the main game error of german side.

Several divisions after 43 arrived with half, or lower scale, and some never builded in full forces (Tatra, etc... divisions), justin regimental level, but was accrued as division.
The soviet side casualties must be 2-3X higher, if we wish to represent the casualties.

[HITMAN202]

Read personal accounts. Exaggeration is oft the rule when historical experts comment on events that have not been personally witnessed. Classic example is what's described as the "classic breakout" of four German divisions. In fact a large number were evacuated by air and the rest walked out in single file. Read the account. Sure there was fighting and many paths of retreat were blocked by impressive Soviet defensive network, but there were no "breakout" per se. Towns that we "lost and recaptured" by "furious attacks", were simple tactical withdrawals that were followed up by a simple counterattack involving few units that panicked Soviet forces. The relief force consisted of 2-3 dozen tanks (11th Panzer) that made very little headway. To say it was anything more than a skirmish is an exaggeration IMO.
No doubt there was tremendous death and suffering, but full scale multi-arm combats ?? Very few.