A proposal for smaller stacks, realistic slices, kampfgruppen

[governato]

Large stacks is the main thing that keeps me from playin DW, which is too bad because I think WEGO is the future of wargaming. BUT I dislike the
need to remember what units are buried deep in stack. It really takes some of the fun and realism away.

Here is my proposal.


-At scenario start the players should be allowed to MERGE a large unit with a smaller one(s), to simulate the attachment of support units or the creation of Kampfgruppen for the scenario duration.

- As this creates 'hybrid' units, Mergers should be allowed only in simple cases where there would be no need for additional complex rules. (I suggest AA, AT or tank platoons or companies to battalion sized units).

- Only mergers between same formation units allowed to avoid complexities in resource assignment.

This would make the game a lot more playable and more realistic in simulating the decisions of local theater/division level commanders.

Also, picked from the devs blog: "Saint Ruth is looking at the "Unit Breakdown/Build-up" question, and I am finishing the ALPHA versions of the air, land, and naval graphics. In the map department, I've finished the 2500-meter per hex maps (dry, mud, frozen) for the base game, and started to experiment with a 250-meter per hex version of the city of Stalingrad. We'll see where this grows."


Any comments/additional info? Btw love where the game is going with the EF addition.

[Saint Ruth]

Hi, yep, DW stacks are a problem, so yep, I'm currently working on breakdown / combine of units, so battalions will be able to be combined into Regiments (and Regiments broken down into Battalions). Some times battalion level is needed if there's a wide front, but other times, they need to concentrate for attacks (lots of stacks), so the breakdown/combine really is the only solution.
Still working on it and the exact rules to be decided, but in general will be Regs to Battalions and back again!
Cheers,
Brian [;)]

[governato]

Merging/splitting would surely help!


I would encourage you to consider merging a smaller support unit (aka attaching ) to a larger unit. That 'd make a lot of sense, but I understand that it bring practical complexities (what graphics do you use to represent a say battalion+attached tank platoon, how to incorporate the benefits of the tank platoon etc etc).

I have an IDEA:

One could do that at the scenario design stage creating a new type of unit: say a battalion+ATsupport or a battalion+Machine Guns or a battalion+tanks with some special intrinsic capabilities. Oh you can call them kampfgruppen for added chrome and people will love to see them in the game description .

A scenario designer would then deploy a number of such units, never creating the separate counters for the individual AT units, leading to smaller stacks and a streamlined
game that better represent the decisions faced by division level commanders.

[Timian]

You can already do that when designing (a new) or mod’ing an existing scenario . . . Don.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato

I have an IDEA:

...create[sic] a new type of unit: say a battalion+ATsupport or a battalion+Machine Guns or a battalion+tanks with some special intrinsic capabilities...

For players of the game, please comment on Governato's suggestion. Would this capability enhance gameplay? Would this capability simplify gameplay? Would this capability make the game too complex? What say you?

ORIGINAL: governato
...a streamlined game that better represent the decisions faced by division level commanders.

Streamlined...I'm all for that. Desert War is not really a division-centric game though...more of a corps/army level actually.

Thanks for the feedback! We can't get there without it. Keep it coming!

[governato]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: governato

I have an IDEA:

...create[sic] a new type of unit: say a battalion+ATsupport or a battalion+Machine Guns or a battalion+tanks with some special intrinsic capabilities...

ORIGINAL: governato
...a streamlined game that better represent the decisions faced by division level commanders.

Streamlined...I'm all for that. Desert War is not really a division-centric game though...more of a corps/army level actually.

To reinforce bcgames comment.. YES the player is a corps/army commander ..they should safely assume that once the decision of attaching small support units has been made (at scenario start by the players or at the scenario design level) their lower lever commanders will take it from there for the duration of the operation. The effect on the game would be smaller stacks and easier tracking of units, at the price of a small loss of "chrome". But the scenario designer could always keep their few platoons of brand new Tigers or deadly 88mm ATs as a separate counters because the players will enjoy to know where they are during a game...

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: governato

I have an IDEA:

...create[sic] a new type of unit: say a battalion+ATsupport or a battalion+Machine Guns or a battalion+tanks with some special intrinsic capabilities...

For players of the game, please comment on Governato's suggestion. Would this capability enhance gameplay? Would this capability simplify gameplay? Would this capability make the game too complex? What say you?

ORIGINAL: governato
...a streamlined game that better represent the decisions faced by division level commanders.

Streamlined...I'm all for that. Desert War is not really a division-centric game though...more of a corps/army level actually.

Thanks for the feedback! We can't get there without it. Keep it coming!

Hi,

I like the idea.....anything that provides a way to keep the flavor and unique capabilities of smaller specialist units without big stacks is great by me, this will do that. I don't think this will unduly over complicate things, but will simplify and enhance the game.

Have you considered setting up a poll to get a numeric indicator of support for the idea??

Rob.[:)]

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Have you considered setting up a poll to get a numeric indicator of support for the idea??

Once. I'm not an expert on proper polling methods/construction. I like to read what people think.

[Saint Ruth]

I understand what you mean, but it would mean having a unit with any AA value, shock value, stacking value, recon values etc that is outside the normal unit rules, so it'd be difficult to do.
And you'd have these units on the map whose individual abilities are not apparent from the unit icon.
Anyway, first I'll try and do the Breakdown/Build up, and then we'll see. [;)]
Thanks,
Brian [8D]

[canuckgamer]

I don't have an issue with larger stacks because I can do a move in increments by saving. I only play PBEM and do the same thing.

I play board wargames and there is a series from GMT games, the FAB series where there are units that they call assets that are in a pool but not on the map. You can add these to any combat with the attacker deciding first. These assets include artillery, anti-tank and engineers. However being boardgames these are obviously not WEGO games whichis ideally suited for a computer game.

Coincidentally I am also playing a boardgame on the desert war from GMT called Desert War 1940 - 1942 where the also have assets such as 88 AT guns, artillery, and air units. As in the FAB series the attacker decides first as to what assets they are adding.

I don't know if this could be a viable option instead of breakdowns and re-combining which I think would add more complexity.

[canuckgamer]

Sorry, my mistake, the desert war game from GMT I am playing is actually titled The Dark Sands and not Desert War 1940 - 1942 which is obviously this computer game.

[mannerheim4]

Governato,

To bring my idea to the "proper location" on units.

There are some board wargames that already do this 'support' idea, which would eliminate the need to have the numerous miscellaneous units of a division as independent platoons/sections etc....

AT guns, AA guns, even artillery. You can get rid of all of them and have them as points assigned to the division. During the planning phase, dole out points to the maneuver elements, either "permanently" or per turn. Similar to what is done with artillery and airplanes. Put the "artillery park" with the HQ unit if you are concerned with range. That's where they usually are, anyway. I'd prefer such a point system to represent attachments to the infantry battalion, as rarely would a commander put an AT gun section on line by itself, as if it were another line unit. With a point system, the weapon and number would increase the various values of the infantry battalion, whether AT value or HE value (from attaching a mortar section, or some 25 pounders).

I think this would clear up the map a lot (piece density is a concern) and would lessen the clicking per turn (you would not likely be changing attachments here and there every turn.

Regards,

Joe

[governato]

- rarely would a commander put an AT gun section on line by itself, as if it were another line unit.
-you would not likely be changing attachments here and there every turn.

I think these are two very good points that would make the game not only easier to play, but also more realistic.

[Alan Sharif]

Less units would help where stacking is concerned, but it's not a game breaker for me, just a 'nice to have'.

[countrboy]

I have to admit the stacking issues have put me off playing the game much. I don't mind moving a lot of units during my turn, but excessive stacking just makes it hard to see what is going on. I like the way it was implemented in Grigsby's EF and WF games where you could stack two units together but even that was pretty rare.

[bcgames]

Stalingrad: Nightmare on the Volga will take a smaller slice of "Big Events" and use regiment-sized units that wrap-up all the "ants" into a single unit. Stack sizes are down, unit frontages are increased, unit count per scenario lowered--by request; this means smaller areas of operation--e.g. no Operation Uranus...just snap shots from it. How do you feel about that?

[governato]

That is good news! I personally like spending time on the most interesting chunks of larger operations! And I am keen to see the engine work at this larger scale.

Q1: rules-wise how do you manage the merging of smaller/special capabilities units into regiments?

Q1b: Do you have special kampfgruppen units for the Axis?

Q2: will the game mostly focus on Winter 42/43 Are you willing to drop a few hints on the engagements that will be covered ?

[76mm]

Frankly I would prefer large battles with battalion-sized units, but I'm sure not everyone feels that way. But what size units can the editor handle?

Also, how will the various specialty troops be reflected in the new, bigger units?

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: governato

Q1: rules-wise how do you manage the merging of smaller/special capabilities units into regiments?

All combat factors in an infantry division are rolled together then divided by three (artillery, infantry, AT, AA, recce--all together). Soviet Tank Corps and Panzer Divisions are regimental/brigade roll-ups by maneuver type (tanks or infantry) plus their slice of support arms. Each maneuver regiment/brigade (armor, infantry cavalry) can break down into three equal-sized battlegroups...or build back up to a regiment/brigade.

ORIGINAL: governato
Q1b: Do you have special kampfgruppen units for the Axis?

Not really. All regiments of a division are under the command of the same divisional headquarters. As such players could mix and match battalions in a Soviet Tank Corps or Panzer Division to form their own battlegroups/kampfgruppen. Their are some ad-hoc "gruppe" reinforcements that the Axis will receive after the encirclement of Stalingrad (on/about 23 December 42). These represent the various Alarm battalions that were formed from German and Romanian logistics troops and airbase personnel.

ORIGINAL: governato
Q2: will the game mostly focus on Winter 42/43 Are you willing to drop a few hints on the engagements that will be covered ?

The focus of the game is the Stalingrad campaign--from Fuhrer Directive 45, item 4 (23 Jul 1942) to the surrender of the German 6th Army (2 Feb 1943).

"4. The task of Army Group B is, as previously laid down, to develop the Don defenses and, by a thrust forward to Stalingrad, to smash the enemy forces concentrated there, to occupy the town, and to block the land communications between the Don and the Volga, as well as the Don itself...

These operations by Army Group B will be known by the cover name "Heron"."

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Frankly I would prefer large battles with battalion-sized units, but I'm sure not everyone feels that way.

I do as well--especially if I'm playing a human player--always need to have that last antitank company. However, Stalingrad is HUGE compared to Desert War. There are 22 divisions alone in the Stalingrad Pocket...then there are all the Axis forces on the outside and two Soviet Fronts worth of units. The air forces are ridiculously large. Maybe someday...but not this time around.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
But what size units can the editor handle?

Combat Units: Platoon to Army level
HQ units: Platoon to Army level

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Also, how will the various specialty troops be reflected in the new, bigger units?

Corps and Army assets are represented in the game and there are ALOT (artillery, antitank, antiaircraft, bridging engineers, etc.).

I think there is a good mixture of unique unit capability in Stalingrad to keep it interesting and moveable.