Force, Formation, and Unit recommended settings

[cathar1244]

Versions I and II of TOAW included recommended settings for things like unit proficiency, etc.

Since those editions, new force parameters have been introduced.

In hindsight, I would take minor issue with some of the recommendations.

The recommendations do not go beyond the year 2000.

All that aside, this may be of interest to scenario designers.

Cheers

[76mm]

Really helpful, thanks!

[Lobster]

The Soviet Union should not have a 60 in unit proficiency in the time period 40-41 except perhaps the Far East units. Some of the units should not even be 20. They had a good supply stockpile but a crappy supply distribution efficiency. Supply Stockpile should be significantly higher but sde should be somewhat lower, maybe three or four points. What saved them was falling back on their supply sources while having a diminishing army to supply, especially POL related units.

[mussey]

It is helpful. It gives another perspective that can be useful with scenario design. Thanks!

[cathar1244]

Lobster, I double checked the old manual for the recommended unit proficiency of Soviet units in 1941; the manual does show it as 60.

That aside, I find that rating optimistic, although the intent may have to been to reflect the willingness of (some) Soviet units in 1941 to die in place. Does such courage equal "proficiency"? Well ... IMO, no.

One that jumped out at me is the UK having a zero rating for precision guided munitions through 2000. That is likely an error.

I wonder if any "official" game notes/errata were subsequently issued for World War II-era periods regarding night combat, etc.

If the crew here comes up with a consensus for changed recommendations, recommendations for any new settings, etc., I'll gladly produce a new version of this document.

Cheers

[Silvanski]

You can also check the ratings used in updated versions of well established scenarios like FITE, Directive 21 and anything by Bob Cross or sPzAbt653

[cathar1244]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

You can also check the ratings used in updated versions of well established scenarios like FITE, Directive 21 and anything by Bob Cross or sPzAbt653

That would be an interesting comparison, but I would want that as a second document. Certain settings like unit proficiency would vary widely within each scenario.

Cheers

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244
If the crew here comes up with a consensus for changed recommendations...

ha, that will be interesting.

As Silvanski suggests, probably better to look at scenarios by a handful of experienced designers to see what they came up with, although I don't know if all of those scenarios have been updated for the new ratings either...

[Zovs]

I still have my hard copy of TOAW and COW that lists the suggested values. I am pretty sure those are a good base, and the scenario designers have tailored them for their specific scenarios. I think you can get good results with the original recommend values and then tweak their to reflect the particular scenario/situation your trying to portray.

IMHO

[cathar1244]

Zovs,

You have a recommended settings list for COW? I looked in my COW manual and it was not there. If you have a COW version, can you check it against what I posted or scan it and post it here?

Cheers

[Zovs]

I'll need to go back to my storage shed and recheck. I got this one but it may just be from the original TOAW.

[cathar1244]

Check, that is from the original TOAW. No big deal, I thought maybe the COW installation had a supplementary document addressing the recommendations.

Cheers

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

You can also check the ratings used in updated versions of well established scenarios like FITE, Directive 21 and anything by Bob Cross or sPzAbt653

That would be an interesting comparison, but I would want that as a second document. Certain settings like unit proficiency would vary widely within each scenario.

Cheers

Ah I see. Here I thought McBride knew what he was doing. And I assumed D21 gave the Soviets an advantage to make a fight of it since they have some high proficiency ratings. I would have done that. And I guess Zaloga, Glantz and Sharp don't know what they are talking about. [:D]

[Lobster]

pro·fi·cien·cy
/prəˈfiSHənsē/
noun
a high degree of competence or skill; expertise.
"he demonstrated his proficiency in Chinese"
synonyms: skill, skillfulness, expertise, experience, ability, capability, capacity, competence, competency, adeptness, adroitness, excellence, mastery, prowess, professionalism, aptitude, deftness, dexterity, finesse, facility, effectiveness, accomplishment, aptness, expertness, talent; informalknow-how
"her proficiency was obvious to everyone who sailed with her"

The 17 Mech Corps is my favorite unit for pointing out the lack of proficiency in the RKKA on 22 June, 1941. It's on the low end of the scale but in general the rest of the army wasn't a whole lot better off except for a few units. A handful of units could be a 60 in proficiency but generally 50 or less.

From The Deadly Beginning, Volume I, Soviet Order of Battle, WWII by Charles C. Sharp.

"The 17 Mechanized Corps has the melancholy distinction of being the most poorly equipled unit of all the poorly equiped and half formed mechanized corps in the Red Army on 22 June, 1941."

The 27 Tank Division had a few armored cars, few trucks or artillery towing tractors (not that there was much to tow), no maintenance units, no AA guns and only 25 training tanks. It was nothing more than an infantry regiment and a weak one at that.

The 36 Tank division was even worse off. No artillery of any kind, no AA, no maintenance, few trucks, no tractors (nothing to tow so no loss). Unlike it's sister division, the 27, it was caught in the Minsk pocket because it had zero mobility.

The 209 Mech Division was in the same poor shape. It too was destroyed at Minsk.

The best eqipped Mechanized Corps, the 6 Mech Corps, was well equiped with T-34, KV-1, KV2, trucks, artillery, artillery tractors, personnel and support units. It only lasted a couple of weeks. The tanks were gone even before that.

One of the most common things reported concerning the RKKA was the general lack of training. Only a few units actually had large unit training, battalion or above. Only one Mech Corps had corps level training. Any experienced personel was either in a prison, shot dead or dispersed throughout the RKKA because of the massive expansion program. Many soldiers hadn't even used a rifle. Many tank drivers only had enough experience to drive to battle and get killed. A tank division commander in the south watched as his T-34s were driven one after the other into a quagmire like lemmings where they got permanently stuck. The Soviet lost more tanks to abandonment then through battle.

In the south, when the Germans attacked, the 8 Mech Corps was ordered to Sambor. Then to Stryy. Then to west of Lvov. Then backtracked to Busk. All the while leaving broken down tanks along the roads.

A report on the status of the frontier armies dated 5 June, 1941:
1)"training is intermittant and uncoordinated"
2)"gunnery instruction is running two or three months behind schedule"
3)"coordination between troops within units is bad"
4)"the mechanized (motorized rifle) regiments have no conception of their proper role"
5)"wireless operators are inadequately trained"
plus 17 more items in a litany of shortcomings.

Divisions were missing large numbers of NCOs and officers. Some over 50%. There was no one to train the conscripts or reservists.

If you can find anything proficient in the RKKA in general on 22 June, 1941 then you are living a vivid fantasy life. Stavka didn't expect them to be ready until summer 1942.

[cathar1244]

If you can find anything proficient in the RKKA in general on 22 June, 1941 then you are living a vivid fantasy life.

Yep, I've read similar material about the state of the Red Army in mid-1941.

So: since the figure I quoted was from the original TOAW manual, one wonders why the figure of 60% unit proficiency was suggested.

Well, there was more to 1941 than just June. The Soviet performance surely improved by the end of 1941. Yet, the period quoted by the TOAW manual is "1939 - 1941", so it is also assigning that 60% proficiency to the Soviet performance in the Winter War (another Soviet debacle), as well as more competent operations at Nomonhan and Lake Khasan (ETA: Khasan was in 1938).

I think, though, quoting the selections of scenario designers, while a useful resource for other scenario designers, is something that I may put into a second document. What I quoted at the top of this thread was meant to bring out a part of the game manual that dropped out as newer versions of TOAW were released.

IMO, some of those suggested ratings are off-base. We (all of us) could work to create a new set of "game official" suggestions, but that would be a fair amount of work (at the expense of other activity) for an unknown amount of gain. If the group here wants to hash out new suggested ratings, that is great. If not, I will at some point put up a second document that captures some of the ratings used by scenario designers as examples of what has worked in some well-known TOAW scenarios.

Cheers

[sPzAbt653]

I've been working on an overhaul of D21, and Proficiency Ratings are one of the things that are being reworked. Some may remember a little blowback on the original settings, and my answer then was 'they are all relative to each other'. This answer was mostly because I didn't see any reason to change so many Units and Formations for so little if any difference. But while I am doing the other things that I am doing I decided to go ahead and make these changes for the sake of everone's sanity, though some will always disagree here or there.
The point for this thread being: I wouldn't use D21 as some sort of ultimate display of proper Proficiency Settings [they were all taken from the original FitE anyway].

[cathar1244]

sPzAbt653, understand, and thanks for the comment. If at some point you would like to suggest unit/formation/force ratings for the Russo-German War or other conflicts, please do so. Scenario designer comments would be interesting to read, especially the thoughts underlying rating decisions.

Cheers

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I've been working on an overhaul of D21, and Proficiency Ratings are one of the things that are being reworked. Some may remember a little blowback on the original settings, and my answer then was 'they are all relative to each other'. This answer was mostly because I didn't see any reason to change so many Units and Formations for so little if any difference. But while I am doing the other things that I am doing I decided to go ahead and make these changes for the sake of everone's sanity, though some will always disagree here or there.
The point for this thread being: I wouldn't use D21 as some sort of ultimate display of proper Proficiency Settings [they were all taken from the original FitE anyway].

You need to give the Soviets a higher proficiency in D21. The PO needs some kind of advantage over a human player. You've done a great job making that scenario work well against human opponents.

[Lobster]

An army does not suffer masses of casualties (5.5 million of which only 30% were wounded!!! The rest were KIA and POW!), most importantly NCOs and officers, and magically become proficient. For that to happen the majority have to survive. By the end of 1941 the Soviets were in no better shape. The army was virtually a conscript army newly raised. The training was no better. Most RKKA rank and file got little training and some got none. Before the war in the east even started the STAVKA didn't expect the RKKA to be proficient enough and well enough equipped to conduct a reliable campaign until summer 1942. The German invasion shattered that expectation. It wasn't until winter 1942 that they achieved that level of proficiency. Much information is based on things heard that was passed about in the early days of war gaming and not actually digging into the history and facts of the campaign and studying it. It's amazing that some of those myths still exist even though they have been disproved by Western and Soviet scholars. Mostly due to the "post Soviet/pre Putin shutting down the archives" period where record vaults were somewhat opened.

BTW, if you want to cherry pick scenarios look at Road to Moscow. [;)]

In any event my views are based on historical facts put together by the people who are considered experts in the history of the East Front, not scenario designers.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

pro·fi·cien·cy
/prəˈfiSHənsē/
noun
a high degree of competence or skill; expertise.
"he demonstrated his proficiency in Chinese"
synonyms: skill, skillfulness, expertise, experience, ability, capability, capacity, competence, competency, adeptness, adroitness, excellence, mastery, prowess, professionalism, aptitude, deftness, dexterity, finesse, facility, effectiveness, accomplishment, aptness, expertness, talent; informalknow-how
"her proficiency was obvious to everyone who sailed with her"

Despite the name of the parameter, Unit Proficiency is sort of a combination of Skill and Commitment. (Where commitment is willingness to die for your cause).

In 1941 the Soviets were not very skillful, but they were highly committed (if only because of the machine gun at their backs.)

In contrast, the Italians were fairly skillful, but not committed at all.

Down the road, I hope to split Proficiency into two parameters: Skill and Commitment.