Attrition in France pre invasion

War in Russia is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
Post Reply
PMCN
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Germany

Attrition in France pre invasion

Post by PMCN »

Something that has always annoyed me is the attrition german units suffer in France pre DDay. There was none historically. Units were sent to france to rebuild after buring out on the Russian Front. Is it possible to turn off that effect until the allies invade?
Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

I don't know how much attrition do German units sustain immediately before D-Day, but usual *small* attrition seems realistic to me, because only God knows what happens there on off-map area.
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Something that has always annoyed me is the attrition german units suffer in France pre DDay. There was none historically. Units were sent to france to rebuild after buring out on the Russian Front. Is it possible to turn off that effect until the allies invade?

IIRC, this attrition doesn't start untill 1944, I don't see it on '41 or '43. I think its there to make sure the Western Front begins collapsing about the right time.
PMCN
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Germany

Post by PMCN »

Hmm, then something must be strange with my games. The infantry divisions in france start out with strenghts of 333 and I set the replacement to 80 (+5 per year but that isn't relevent) and within a few weeks they are down to 323. The same is true of the PzKw II's and JPz I's attached to the Pz Bridgades.
RickyB has my game file, he can confirm the strength of the west front. I had at that time done nothing to it beyond removing the planes so they could build in germany rather than suffer attrition in france.
Hoth
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 8:00 am
Location: California,USA
Contact:

Post by Hoth »

I can understand planes in France suffering from attrition. Realisticly the Luftwaffe would be engaging the RAF in skirmishes. There were many air clashes over the channel in 41. Especialy when the FW-190A first made it's appearance there much to the shock of the British. Normal wear and tear from patrols etc to.

Division attrition seems to be a bit much though. I can undersand a little though due to the resistance and British commando raids etc?

During 41 I station four fighter groups in the West,because realisticly I would want as much air support in the west that I could spare to support the troops there.
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Hmm, then something must be strange with my games.

No, I'm seeing it now. The part that tripped me up was seeing the German infantry divisions climb back to 333 after awhile at high a replacement level. Well, what actually was happening was the divisions were getting new allotments of Art, AT, and Flak which just so happened to bring the strength of the units back to 333 even though the number of squads at this point had dropped down to ~220.


RickyB: does excessive attrition in the West Front in '41 and '42 (or later?) constitute a bug or a future issue to deal with at a later time? I've already put this in the issues list.
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

No, I'm seeing it now. The part that tripped me up was seeing the German infantry divisions climb back to 333 after awhile at high a replacement level. Well, what actually was happening was the divisions were getting new allotments of Art, AT, and Flak which just so happened to bring the strength of the units back to 333 even though the number of squads at this point had dropped down to ~220.


RickyB: does excessive attrition in the West Front in '41 and '42 (or later?) constitute a bug or a future issue to deal with at a later time? I've already put this in the issues list.
It isn't a bug - it has always been in the game, and based on the notes, it was designed that way. I used to think it was mainly a blizzard bug killing these guys off, but it hits both fronts in the West and starts the first turn. Personally, I would rather see it reduced significantly, but not eliminated. Anyway, I would classify as a fairly minor issue to deal with later, as it would impact game balance in at least a small way.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by RickyB:
It isn't a bug - it has always been in the game, and based on the notes, it was designed that way. I used to think it was mainly a blizzard bug killing these guys off, but it hits both fronts in the West and starts the first turn. Personally, I would rather see it reduced significantly, but not eliminated.

I don't think its a bug for the Italian Front but it makes no sense for the West Front. It seems to me that West Front attrition shouldn't start until the Allied landing event.
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

I don't think its a bug for the Italian Front but it makes no sense for the West Front. It seems to me that West Front attrition shouldn't start until the Allied landing event.
Hi Ed,

I was looking at bug versus design on this, and based on that I don't think it was a bug in Gary's programming. I would bet that it was a design decision that leads to the attrition, based on the manual saying to set replacements high to preserve both front's strength. So we want to change a design decision rather than fixing a bug. I agree that it should not happen, or only at a very low level, expecially since I always felt the events, which lead to high losses, represent the historical losses of an entire campaign anyway. I guess a lot of it depends on if there is any kind of attrition in the east. I don't think there is but there should be, as losses even during "quiet" periods ran high. Since there is no attrition in the east, why have it in the other areas at all? Balance it by dropping the Axis replacements slightly (the Polish cities in part?) and it should be even game balance wise.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

By the way! Ricky, what do you think about partisan threat in WiR? I think it is nothing if compared with real one. As you have just said, there is no automatic attrition in the East Front currently. Is it hard to include East Front readiness(random) attrition in the programm code? I think it should gradualy increase with the time. It would be better than current strange partisan actions.

Example:
All units(except of Finns) east of Minsk suffer random readiness attrition in the following range:

year__range_dice_average
1941: 2-10% 2d5% 6%
1942: 3-15% 3d5% 9%
1943: 4-20% 4d5% 12%
1944: 6-30% 6d5% 18%
1945: 8-40% 8d5% 24%


Combined with weather effects, it would simmulate harrassment of supply lines more correctly IMHO. That's just idea. Nothing more.

[ May 13, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Mist:
By the way! Ricky, what do you think about partisan threat in WiR? I think it is nothing if compared with real one. As you have just said, there is no automatic attrition in the East Front currently. Is it hard to include East Front readiness(random) attrition in the programm code? I think it should gradualy increase with the time. It would be better than current strange partisan actions.

Example:
All units(except of Finns) east of Minsk suffer random readiness attrition in the following range:

year__range_dice_average
1941: 2-10% 2d5% 6%
1942: 3-15% 3d5% 9%
1943: 4-20% 4d5% 12%
1944: 6-30% 6d5% 18%
1945: 8-40% 8d5% 24%


Combined with weather effects, it would simmulate harrassment of supply lines more correctly IMHO. That's just idea. Nothing more.

[ May 13, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]
Sounds like a possible idea to talk about, if we reach that stage. I like the readiness hit as it doesn't have a permanent effect requiring other changes like actual personnel losses would. The idea I had would be to have permanent partisans that are weak and easily "crushed" if surrounded but retreat easily if not, a movement of only 1 plot, always in supply. This would require significant forces to fight and destroy them, without causing heavy losses to the Axis. Thus, not much impact on strength levels for the Axis, but it would distract important units from the front. I know my idea won't fly, though, as it would expand memory requirements even further.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

PMCN
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Germany

Post by PMCN »

Been away so this is the first chance I have had to comment.

On the West front, the historical trend was to rotate troops from Russia to France, and while in France those units would rebuild so pre-invasion there should be no attrition of combat units. Air units as was pointed out is a different situation. The troops stationed in France suffered more for the fact that they were overcharged for coffee than from combat.

On the East front a suggestion to make partisans more of a threat would be to make them persistent. I never use my SEC divisions for anything but partisan stomping...I make up a number of single division (SEC) Korp and when a partisan shows up I rail-march the closest Korp there to smack them. This is what the Germans did historically. Partisans were not a threat to combat troops as no partisan could stand up to them, and they were much less of a threat in winter. I think that the way WIR handles partisans is ok (in terms of their effect), excepting that the German player is not forced to deal with them since they go away the next turn.
Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

Partisans are NOTHING in WiR. I've never bothered with them at all because there're enough railroads to supply whole East Army. As for security divisions, I train them in West/Italian Fronts, build up to full strength and use in 1942 offensive as elite reinforcements. This must difinitely be changed as soon as more important things will be fixed.
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by Mist:
Partisans are NOTHING in WiR. I've never bothered with them at all because there're enough railroads to supply whole East Army.

I agree with both of you Mist and Paul. The problem is square control is determined by nearby supply, not military presence. To do the persistence would require an exception to the code preventing partisan squares from converting back to the German owner, forcing the German player to use the movement (or just nearby presence) of combat troops to regain control. This means tracking a new variable for each square.

This kind of major work isn't being done right now (you've heard me say this a hundred times haven't you? sorry), its a good idea though, its on the issues list now.

[ May 18, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by RickyB:

Sounds like a possible idea to talk about, if we reach that stage. I like the readiness hit as it doesn't have a permanent effect requiring other changes like actual personnel losses would. The idea I had would be to have permanent partisans that are weak and easily "crushed" if surrounded but retreat easily if not, a movement of only 1 plot, always in supply. This would require significant forces to fight and destroy them, without causing heavy losses to the Axis. Thus, not much impact on strength levels for the Axis, but it would distract important units from the front. I know my idea won't fly, though, as it would expand memory requirements even further.

Guys, I'm not sure about this. To me it'll just make the game more tedious. Partisans in general do not stand their ground when being attacked by an SS Panzer division, they separate and disappear into the night/fog/forests/whatever (The only exception I know of is Yugoslavia). They do their job by attacking the rear areas inflicting damage to supply chains, not standing toe-to-toe with a German front-line division, panzer or infantry.

Making partisans into a military unit does not make the simulation more realistic, it never felt right in Third Reich, and I don't see it as an improvement over what we've got now. What we have now can be extended for better realism, such as what we were discussing earlier about persistent partisan control of squares.

Besides, consider this. All the German player is going to do is put all of his Security divisions along with the weak Italian, Light Hun, and Rumanian infantry divisions, and perhaps other forces, into a corps for each division to quickly surround partisan units, given a 1 square plot advantage. He'll form 6 corps "kill teams" and put them at vulnerable rail connections, or wherever the partisans are showing up. Running down partisans and killing them will just get boring after awhile.

The problem is the historical supply problems created by partisans isn't possible in WIR, since WIR doesn't track rail capacity for *supplies*. It also will reroute a supply chain from a unit in the south (after a southern east-west route is blocked by partisans for example), north to a major east-west line then west to Berlin, when in reality the total supply couldn't make it thru that congested east-west route which suddenly finds itself being used by nearly every unit on the map, assuming all other east-west routes are blocked. *That* is the problem, and making partisans into military units doesn't solve that problem.

Let's try, assuming Arnaud is willing, a simple extension at first and see how that works. Persistent partisan control of squares, a small increase in partisan activity, but also new code to make it more likely that new partisan controlled squares occur adjacent to squares already controlled by partisans.

Partisan areas left alone by the Germans only get bigger and even if they start in some remote area, if left alone long enough they could reach important rail lines. So, the German player must deal with partisan squares now instead of just ignoring them.

It's not perfect. This could and probably will get boring after awhile too, but at least it leaves out the combat. It can't be perfect, given the problem about supply capacity mentioned above, but it will force the German player to pay attention to partisans now. The only question is how much more memory is this going to take?

One radical alternative is to remove partisans altogether and institute automatic readiness penalties for Eastern Front units in say '43, '44, and '45. Having both at the same time doesn't make sense, but readiness penalties may be the best way of representing the effect of partisans. Note, I'm not saying unit attrition, only readiness penalties. Partisans just can't be responsible for inflicting so much losses in every German division on the Eastern front. Reducing supply, yes, but standing toe-to-toe with front line military units and inflicting damage, no.

[ May 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Ed,

The whole idea was mine, no other "guys" even mentioned it or supported it directly that I saw. And as I said, my idea wouldn't work based on memory limits. There was definitely no mention of going toe to toe between partisans and Axis units - that was specifically mentioned that the partisans would either be crushed or chased off - fairly historical action. The partisan threat was so bad in areas that Panzer divisions in reserve were frequently used to carry out anti-partisan efforts. This happened behind the Rzhev bulge quite often. Something like a 10 squad type that needs no supplies, can't move next to enemy security units (with a movement of 2 maybe), etc. They control only the hex occupied and no persistence. However, it has never been raised by me because probably not doable period in this game. Very possibly boring anyway, and as you say supply is not handled realistically anyway.

I see two problems with persistent partisan controlled hexes. The program would have to differentiate between partisan-controlled hexes and cutoff regular-controlled hexes, which would add some complex coding into the game to deal with the different control issues, and liberation by regular troops. Also, this idea would basically require a lot of the same boring plotting to resolve, such as plot left one, then up right one, etc. to criss-cross the persistent areas and overrun them all.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by RickyB:
Ed,

The whole idea was mine, no other "guys" even mentioned it or supported it directly that I saw.

Ok, sorry. I thought Mist was involved as well, but I looked and I was indeed wrong. "guys" wasn't mean in any derogatory way Rick. I'm from the South, would "you-all", or "you-unzes" have been better? :)


And as I said, my idea wouldn't work based on memory limits.

Ok, "my" idea (really Paul's idea) would have the same problem.


There was definitely no mention of going toe to toe between partisans and Axis units - that was specifically mentioned that the partisans would either be crushed or chased off - fairly historical action.

By making partisans corps-sized military units, combat with other corps units is implied. Resistance in Occupied Soviet Union was strong later on, but never that strong.


The partisan threat was so bad in areas that Panzer divisions in reserve were frequently used to carry out anti-partisan efforts.

Anti-partisan efforts, a.k.a. anti-guerilla operations, is not the same as conventional warfare. Making those partisans physical military units represented on the map implies conventional warfare.


I see two problems with persistent partisan controlled hexes. The program would have to differentiate between partisan-controlled hexes and cutoff regular-controlled hexes, which would add some complex coding into the game to deal with the different control issues, and liberation by regular troops. Also, this idea would basically require a lot of the same boring plotting to resolve, such as plot left one, then up right one, etc. to criss-cross the persistent areas and overrun them all.

Although the absence of a physical partisan unit means a little less boring play for the Soviet player, the German player does have a lot of plotting to do too, so you're right, my idea has problems too. This is mainly why I "re-suggested" Mist's idea of readiness penalties, although there are issues with this idea too.


To Mist:

Your idea is good in general but there are two problems I see. First, I think the percentages you give are unusually high particularly '44 and '45, but this is just an opinion. The biggest problem is location. Watching a Panzer division in 1945 take 24% readiness losses because of "partisan" activity even though it, and the entire German army, is backed up and fighting in Poland, Rumania, and Hungary, won't sit very well with all the would-be panzer leaders out there. :) So the actual readiness penalty should be determined not so much by date but by location: The farther east a German unit is the worse the penalty, but its modified somewhat by the date. I don't see this needing a whole lot of code either. It should be a straightforward, if not simple, calculation.

[ May 20, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Ok, sorry. I thought Mist was involved as well, but I looked and I was indeed wrong. "guys" wasn't mean in any derogatory way Rick. I'm from the South, would "you-all", or "you-unzes" have been better?

[ May 20, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]
Actually, I kinda like y'all myself. I was born in North Carolina and lived in Virginia and Florida also, but not a long time in any of the three - I'm a western boy (or old man) now. :p Anyway, I just didn't want anybody else to get credit (or tarred and feathered) for what I had thrown out off the cuff. ;) Again, the whole idea was about a specialized partisan unit that couldn't stand up in a fight, just to force security forces to be deployed, which isn't necessary right now.

I guess thinking about it further, and the fun factor, I have just a little more to add. So far, the only ideas that would encourage security forces in the rear are the persistent partisan areas or actual partisan units. I like Mist's idea, but there is nothing to encourage rear area forces there. I have a pair of boardgames I love - Fire in the East and Scorched Earth on the fighting in the east. It has two choices for the partisans. The standard rule is that the Soviet player gets a number of attacks per turn based on the time and the area. These attacks can be against unguarded raillines. Security/SS units cast a security zone around them into adjacent hexes, while regular units only secured the hex they are in. Thus, it required a chain of security along critical raillines to protect them from attack, but nothing else was needed. This is how I always played it as there was almost no work involved, and it could be easily added to the game by focusing the current random partisans to look for unsecure rail hexes. The second option was partisan units, which required hunting down and destruction by units, but then secure raillines didn't matter so the effect was about the same, but this option was a lot more work for little gain. This option sounds like what I suggested before, and you are right. I didn't use it as it wasn't any fun in my mind for the amount of work needed.

What I like about the first method is it should be easy to program within the existing framework, and the Axis side normally has plenty of Korps units available that could be used to hold the raillines, and the attacks could be limited to within 10 hexes or something of the closest Soviet units. This requires almost no extra work by either player either. As a matter of fact, based on the manual this is how I used to deploy my forces when I first played, as the manual makes it sound like you do need security in the rear to fight partisans, even though you really don't.

Anyway, just one more idea, since I like Mist's idea but there is still no need for security in the rear, unlike historically.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

Ed, your idea is good! Make readiness losses depending bith on how far unit is on the east and on the year(note:my idea was to apply it to all units east of Minsk equaly). I think there is no real need on security divisions, because historicaly Germans could not deal with partisan problem excelently. No doubt, there were certain successes, but threat to communications was increasing with the time. I have a reference on German author saying that nearly all supply lines of AGC were cut off by partisans in the begining of major Soviet offensive in June'44.
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by RickyB:
I have a pair of boardgames I love - Fire in the East and Scorched Earth on the fighting in the east. It has two choices for the partisans. The standard rule is that the Soviet player gets a number of attacks per turn based on the time and the area. These attacks can be against unguarded raillines. Security/SS units cast a security zone around them into adjacent hexes, while regular units only secured the hex they are in. Thus, it required a chain of security along critical raillines to protect them from attack, but nothing else was needed. This is how I always played it as there was almost no work involved, and it could be easily added to the game by focusing the current random partisans to look for unsecure rail hexes.

This sounds like the best idea so far.


What I like about the first method is it should be easy to program within the existing framework, and the Axis side normally has plenty of Korps units available that could be used to hold the raillines, and the attacks could be limited to within 10 hexes or something of the closest Soviet units. This requires almost no extra work by either player either.

No work by the players, yes, but much work by Arnaud. This idea requires a special category of units, "security units", that doesn't currently exist, and the "zone of control" is brand new to the game. That would mean at the very least, that every square would have to be checked every turn whether it is or isn't possible for partisans to attack there. Doable, but Arnaud may want to hold this for the next round of changes.


As a matter of fact, based on the manual this is how I used to deploy my forces when I first played, as the manual makes it sound like you do need security in the rear to fight partisans, even though you really don't.

The only advantage I know of is the "partisans annihilated in combat" possibility which would occur if partisans attacked an occupied square or perhaps even a square adjacent to German military forces. Supposedly this cut down on partisan activity for the next turn or so, but in the end your right, there is no need to worry about partisans for the most part.

[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]
Post Reply

Return to “War In Russia: The Matrix Edition”