WitE 2

[chaos45]

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier) as the 5 types of units for the modifier. The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements- either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more protected from small arms/light arms.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility and then the condition would escalate up the chain. static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender. Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.

Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility, due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

[timmyab]

I think combat losses should be a combination of leader ratings, unit experience/morale and unit stance (if WITE had a stance option). Terrain should be part of the equation too.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Yes - think WitW+ in the east.

I understand that this decision is final and it is not going to change but it would be great to have an opinion / scenario with daily turns with the new version of the game engine (if possible from a programming point of view).

[loki100]

edit: deleted as being repetition ... and possibly deviation

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier) as the 5 types of units for the modifier. The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements- either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more protected from small arms/light arms.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility and then the condition would escalate up the chain. static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender. Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.

Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility, due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

Chaos every answer to give never has the basic officer training as part of it only xyz men parts ect.
Kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers is never part of any of your ideas.

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as per of loses is just not historical at all.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I think combat losses should be a combination of leader ratings, unit experience/morale and unit stance (if WITE had a stance option). Terrain should be part of the equation too.

Historical military doctrine should be part of the answer to the problem of retreat loses

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier)
as the 5 types of units for the modifier.
The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements-
either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more
protected from small arms/light arms.

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.
German units can not be grouped with Russian units for this simply historical fact. Also WA were trained for retreating.



So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility
and then the condition would escalate up the chain.
static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender.
Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.
Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war
period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

German units and officers trained for retreats, Russians did not, Russian units were forbid in 99% of all cases to retreat, they were trained to attack.
This is were things always go wrong, you want to add things to the game that are simply unhistorical. Every unit had ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ) NKVD officers + other political officers and simply did not allow freedom of movement UNTIL LATER 43.
This is a key thing your over looking. You have always personally pushed Cav units not for historical reasons but personal as they are a good unit to exploit. Late war Cav units were simply tank units nothing more. Lets stick to historical models and not personal.

Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility,
due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?

NO!


Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

I am kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers for Russia and Germany has
never part of WitE. I and others have posted on this in the past.

Can we finally stop ignoring this?

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because
of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as part of loses is just not historical at all.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?

Good book by S. Biddle explaining why advantage in numbers, technology, training and morale is not everything, yielding sometimes surprising results (defense in depths and mobile reserves is the only proper way to contain a modern attack, however at the unavoidable price of trading a few km of space in the process - unless it can be recaptured later with a counter attack; while trying to stand and fight in place, not to lose any ground, is a sure way to be defeated):
http://www.amazon.com/Military-Power-Ex ... 0691128022

Also, in Dupuy's books (Numbers, Prediction, and War; Attrition: Forecasting...; Understanding War) there are interesting observations ("verities") made about attrition and losses in battle (smaller engagements being more bloody due to higher percentage of forces involved; attacker suffering on average lower losses; losses ratio of AFVs in "tank heavy forces" being different from that where tanks are in supporting role only), and he names two important "operational" components affecting strength (what can be considered equivalent to CV + what happens during firing sequence in WitE) in his formula, which are sound even if you don't agree about the actual formulas used: mobility of force (based on the number of men, number of trucks and strength of AFVs, affected by weather, terrain and air superiority), and vulnerability (based on number of men, exposure - posture vs terrain, ratio of enemy's strength to own, air superiority and amphibious/river crossing impact). I don't think all of these factors are properly (or enough) affecting combat and losses in WitE.

[Peltonx]

Also just because a unit is pulling back aka retreating does not mean they are getting over run, lol

Its a 7 day battle over a single hex.

A rout is not a retreat and a retreat is not a rout.

rout1


/rout/


noun

noun: rout; plural noun: routs



1.


a disorderly retreat of defeated troops.


re·treat


/r&#601;&#712;trçt/


verb

verb: retreat; 3rd person present: retreats; past tense: retreated; past participle: retreated; gerund or present participle: retreating



1.


(of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.

[charlie0311]

Sometimes "retreating" troops inflict higher loses on the attacker than they suffer. Depends on training and doctrine, as Pelton says. Ex. USMC, Chosin reservoir, Korea.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

...


Lets not forget a few basic things your over looking that were key historical factors.

1. Germans trained and Russians had NONE for retreating. Retreating for Germans was not considered a bad things at the divisions and lower levels. It was part of officer training and units training.

2. The Russians had political officers ( the religious police ) that looked over the shoulder of the military officers.
Russian officer were not allowed to retreat and had to follow orders from the top, EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER NEW THESE ORDERS WERE DEAD WRONG.
If the Russians attacked and were clearly losing they still had to attack.

I am kind of surpised the basic military doctrine and training of the officers for Russia and Germany has
never part of WitE. I and others have posted on this in the past.

Can we finally stop ignoring this?

Retreat loses and attack losses need to be much higher for Russian formations because
of the historical military doctrine of Russia

MP's as part of loses is just not historical at all.

Pelton

I'm sorry but this is wrong. The Soviets always had a defensive doctrine right up to the fall of the USSR. A major part of marxist-leninist doctrine was that the USSR was fluffy peace loving state but seriously at risk from evil imperialist warmongers. Thus any war would start with the Red Army having to defend.

leaving the realms of fantasy, given what was envisaged in Tukhachevsky's attack doctrine they planned long and hard for what might happen when someone did the same to them.

Their basic attack logic was that there was a logarithmic link between depth of breakthrough and depth of disruption. Their goal was to maximise the second. At its simplest they assumed a 10km breakthrough produced another 10 km of disruption (in effect you made the divisional command structure have to relocate and so on), by the time you got 50km then the disruption was out to 150km - think of corps HQs having to relocate, airfields to evacuate and troops guarding depots to have to make decisions whether to destroy the contents.

If you got a 100km breakthrough, an entire army group could be disrupted.

That is exactly what the Germans did to them in 1941 and to a lesser extent in 1942.

The problem with the Soviets consistently was not doctrine (which was mostly sound and well suited to their capacity and equipment) but execution. Quite simply they were too prepared to use ill-trained infantry and had too many utter idiots in command posts. For the other side of the coin look at the Nov 41 battles at Borodino where one of the Siberian divisions tangled with an SS Mot division. In the end the Soviets pulled back, battered but in good order, exactly when it suited them.

A later war eg is the mess that Western Front made around Vyazma-Mogilev from late 42 to the end of 43. Then Rokossovsky was given command of the reconstituted Bielorussian Front and stormed Gomel in a matter of days with a well executed plan of operations, including a flexible artillery fire plan. That of course set up AGC for the later disaster in Bagration.

Equally yes, sometimes the NKVD did shoot retreating units, but that was much less common than popular history would have you believe. In the main the direct use of terror as a tool to manage the Red Army dropped away from early 1942 as it quite simply did not work.

[chaos45]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Thats not a bad idea. Now getting the balance right will be the hard part.

Instead of movements points you could modify losses based on attacker/defender type with another modifier for unit size.

Basically static/infantry/cavalry/motorized/mechanized(tank, mech corps, panzergrenadier)
as the 5 types of units for the modifier.
The reason I separate out motorized and mechanized is mechanized units have typically more armored elements-
either tanks or armored transports, thus can pursue a defender more closely and quickly since they are more
protected from small arms/light arms.

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.
German units can not be grouped with Russian units for this simply historical fact. Also WA were trained for retreating.

-Wrong No retreat was a standard order from Hitler from the Winter of 1941 on, Generals that disobeyed were fired or shot including some of the best Generals in the German Army. Guderian was relieved over this exact issue.

-One issue on Soviet retreat losses- alot of Soviet troops did have a tendency to escape German pockets and be re-integrated into the Soviet Army, doesnt really happen in the game.

-Agree Soviets should take higher losses- never argued that point, however if you increase Soviet losses to historical you also have to increase their replacement and industry levels to arm those replacements to historical levels. Honestly the game should refund Armaments points for % of lost squads every turn as almost every army recycled small arms and squad equipment.

So a cavalry unit defeating an infantry unit would inflict extra losses due to more mobility
and then the condition would escalate up the chain.
static < infantry < cavalry< motorized < mechanized for increased retreat losses on the defender.
Then if the defender is equal or more mobility would just be standard losses.
Also would have to code say Soviet cav corps to act as a motorized unit for effects when it transitions in the late war
period to more armored elements/mobile elements since its a hybrid unit.

German units and officers trained for retreats, Russians did not, Russian units were forbid in 99% of all cases to retreat, they were trained to attack.
This is were things always go wrong, you want to add things to the game that are simply unhistorical. Every unit had ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD ) NKVD officers + other political officers and simply did not allow freedom of movement UNTIL LATER 43.
This is a key thing your over looking. You have always personally pushed Cav units not for historical reasons but personal as they are a good unit to exploit. Late war Cav units were simply tank units nothing more. Lets stick to historical models and not personal.

-Political Officers lost oversight of Army Officers by I believe summer of 1942 as the Soviets realized it was more harm than good. Whats funny is as the war went on and especially late-war the Germans were in effect starting to use "SS Commisars" to enforce stand and die orders or be hung.

-As to Cav units, they are superior mobility to a foot infantry division- is a fact, not personal preference. Germans also have cavalry divisions so not completely one-sided......An if you read my comment I talk about changing their status for LW so not sure what kinda point you were trying to make here.
Then based on current on map units- BDE/Division/Corps for unit modifiers- The Reason I bring this up is a tank BDE attacking with infantry divisions against a defending infantry division should have as dramatic an effect on the defenders as a full tank division/tank Corps.

Such as Soviet tank Brigade or German panzer regiment/Stug BDE/motorized BDE only has say a 25% bonus modifier while a tank corps/full German division would have the full modifier, and then a mech Corps like full modified +25% and probably the GD and some of the very large SS panzer divisions in LW would have the bigger modifier.

Also this is another place where Fortification values could reduce the bonus from mobility,
due to delaying lines of defense/minefields an such as a factor....such as Lvl 1- -25% effect of mobility, Lvl 2 - -50%, and lvl 3- -75%

Just some thoughts.

Just wanted to add another commnet on the Cav Corps and my play not being historical- The Soviets historical formed 20+ Cav Corps and "Mobile Groups" Mobile groups being mixed units but usually having at least 2 cavalry divisions so basically a cav Corps.

Historically many were destroyed in pockets. So nothing about having 20+ Cav Corps is unhistorical in fact its quite historical....not getting them wiped out in pockets all the time is the difference.

[Helpless]

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.

BS

[chaos45]

Simple fact is unit mobility should factor into losses.

Soviet units have lower experience, experience should also be a factor and thats how you help to differentiate the two sides on losses/retreat losses.

A 70 Experience german infantry division being over run by a tank division/tank Corps should still take less losses than a 50 experience Soviet infantry division. Thats how you bake in the training- which is already a very overpowering effect in the game due to Morale being directly tied to experience levels for max.

Another simple fact is that usually as the war went on and the Soviets grasped mobile warfare entire German divisions were erased in a couple days of combat if they were the point of impact for a Soviet offensive. Have read numerous accounts of how basically whatever German division took the brunt of the offensive to pierce the lines was virtually destroyed especially as you get into late 1943 on. As the Soviets would effectively box in the Division with planned artillery fire to isolate it and then run them over with mobile forces....there was almost no escape- another reason for the bagration catastrophe.

Pelton- you have read to many books that concentrate only on the thin German lines holding back hordes of screaming red army men.....Read more books on the actual experiences of individual soldiers/officers at battalion level and down and you get a much different picture of what combat at the spearpoint was like on the eastern front. In the Early War yes wave attacks were used at extreme cost by the soviets but after that they learned and basically by the end of 1942 had a firm grasp of both small unit and larger scale mobile operations against the Germans.

The other thing you seem to forget with 4:1 loss ratio qoutes an such is the game already has much reduced Soviet replacement rates over what they historical replaced and threw into battle. So at this point a drastic increase in Soviet losses would have to be compensated for with historical replacement rates. So your really not gaining much as German player other than to see bigger numbers of Soviet dead/wounded.

The game is already giving the Germans+ axis allied an overall 2:1 exchange rate per week with no encirclements and a massive exchange rate when encirclements happen, and only giving the soviets 50-75% of historical replacement rates......so effectively the Axis are already getting a 3-4+:1 exchange rate in the game as is. So you have no point of arguement on that really.

As to Soviet leadership being pigheaded and not throwing our men away in wasteful attacks- Well if your not Hitler and dont have to do Stalingrad then well Im not Stalin and not going to order repeated suicidal attacks every week.....whats good for one side is good for the other as well. Since high command and operational command is the players choice now it needs to boil down to statistics and tactical battle effects.

Which experience, morale, weapon systems are already calculated into the system and big one left out is respective unit mobility and why I think it needs included. Its very hard to retreat and get away from someone more mobile than you period. Even with proper tactics your rearguard will often by destroyed/captured if the enemy is faster. Germans realized if left on the rear-guard it was usually a death sentence and very often rear guard elements were never seen again.

You also dont seem to realize the retreat in front of moscow during the first winter was a disaster of the highest order....AGC would have been destroyed if hitler hadnt ordered them to stand fast and as it was it was nearly destroyed in 1941/1942. In a game moving a counter is easy...in real life moving a division takes alot of effort now imagine trying to move a division of men and heavy equipment with effectively no transport, no fuel, no roads, and no back up defense lines.....and you understand why the German army lost massive amounts of material- because men can save themselves by walking on foot- but men cants take 15CM howitzer with them without trucks/horses. That first winter every German retreat suffered should inflict a significant portion of higher material equipment losses as they simply couldnt move them.

[Walloc]

Lala lala...

Wally

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

German formations trained on delaying tactics Russian did not. Russian units attacked until wiped out in many cases or were shot by NKVD officers when they tried.

BS

Double BS

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So for the sake of argument should retreat losses be modified by the ratio of MP points - the higher in the attackers favour the more losses?

Please include experience and a command check as well. All 3 elements need to be there for "perfect" result.

This would also help to graduate the losses, both defender and attacker has 3 checks which can fail leading to a range of results.

[Peltonx]

From my past exp we can expect no changes.

Only comments on political issues or window dressing when it comes to the combat engine.

Is that really your only comment helpless on what everyone sees wrong with the combat engine or is this going to be another issue like "there is nothing wrong with NM its working fine", there is not armament bug, there is not an issue with German OOB and swapping bugs what swapping bugs.

Its clear to many that the combat engine simply is not giving close to historical results as many have posted in this tread and this one

tm.asp?m=3943380&mpage=1&key=

I know its allot to read.

Also I like to read all history as in both sides. If your calling BS historical fact then yes I am full of it.

The concept was re-introduced on a large scale during the German–Soviet War.[3] On June 27, 1941, in response to reports of unit disintegration in battle and desertion from the ranks in the Soviet Red Army, the 3rd Department (military counterintelligence of Soviet Army) of the USSR's Narkomat of Defense issued a directive creating mobile barrier forces composed of NKVD personnel to operate on roads, railways, forests, etc. for the purpose of catching 'deserters and suspicious persons'. These forces were given the acronym SMERSH (from the Russian Smert shpionam - Death to spies).[4][5] SMERSH detachments were created from NKVD troops, augmented with counterintelligence operatives, and were under the command of the NKVD.[4]

With the continued deterioration of the military situation in the face of the German offensive of 1941, SMERSH and other NKVD punitive detachments acquired a new mission: to prevent the unauthorized withdrawal of Red Army forces from the battle line.[4][5] The first troops of this kind were formed in the Bryansk Front on September 5, 1941.

On September 12, 1941, Joseph Stalin issued the Stavka Directive No. 1919 (Äèðåêòèâà Ñòàâêè ÂÃÊ ¹001919) concerning the creation of barrier troops in rifle divisions of the Southwestern Front, to suppress panic retreats. Each Red Army division was to have an anti-retreat detachment equipped with transport totalling one company for each regiment. Their primary goal was to maintain strict military discipline and to prevent disintegration of the front line by any means, including the use of machine guns to indiscriminately shoot any personnel retreating without authorization.[6] These barrier troops were usually formed from ordinary military units, and placed under NKVD command.

In 1942, after the creation of penal battalions by Stavka Directive No. 227 (Äèðåêòèâà Ñòàâêè ÂÃÊ ¹227), anti-retreat detachments were used to prevent withdrawal or desertion by penal units as well. However, Penal military unit personnel were always rearguarded by NKVD or SMERSH anti-retreat detachments, and not by regular Red Army infantry forces.[4] As per Order No. 227 each Army should have 3–5 barrier squads up to 200 persons each.

A report to Commissar General of State Security Lavrentiy Beria on October 10, 1941, noted that since the beginning of the war, NKVD anti-retreat troops had detained a total of 657,364 retreating or deserting personnel, of which 25,878 were arrested (of which 10,201 were sentenced to death by court martial) and the rest were returned to active duty. Most of those arrested were later returned to active duty as well.[7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops

Aurelian its really not to hard to goggle stuff [:D]

I could post 100's of links, but I am kinda busy, you can goggle them.

"According to the NKVD's own figures, NKVD blocking detachments detained nearly seven hundred thousand officers and men between the beginning of the war and 10 October 1941. They returned most to active duty. But they arrested nearly twenty-six thousand, and shot more than ten thousand, over three thousand in front of their comrades. ... in Leningrad in September 1941, Zhukov personally ordered machine guns to be turned on retreating battalions"
- Rodric Braithwaite, Moscow 1941: A city and its People at War, p. ii: http://books.google.com/books?id=aChpsFv...

The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia

13,500 Russian men were shot in a span of a few weeks early in the Stalingrad battle it self as a result of 227

Hitler and Stalin were both monsters to believe other wise is to ignore historical fact.

[chaos45]

Yep NKVD shot alot of Soviet citizens is fact and they did an excellent job of record keeping this fact or so ive heard from people that have been in the Soviet archives.

However Pelton Hitlers no retreat orders were almost as brutal- would have to do some digging but think its somewhere around 10-20k German Soldiers were also executed and im sure thousands more forced into suicide penal battalions...Hmm penal battalions support units both sides should have lol as they both did have them. More of less more casualty intensive Sapper/Pioneer units for the most part.