Soviet Command and Control Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


IdahoNYer -> Soviet Command and Control Question (9/1/2012 3:59:13 AM)

Biggest challenge I find playing the Soviets is organizing the force. Blessed with plenty of units, but never enough headquarters - especially Front HQs.

So which is better - Keeing armies attached directly to STAVKA, or overloading the Front HQs? Advantages/disadvantages to either?




hfarrish -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/1/2012 4:32:57 AM)


Personally, at least in '41, I ignore C&C except for my reserve lines around Moscow and elsewhere where I want to dig (so you want units attached to Army HQs with sappers, et al). If you keep everything that isn't on the front line attached to STAVKA (as well as some quiet sectors) you shouldn't have an issue. Once reserves start pouring in that pretty much becomes impossible even with a lot of stuff attached to STAVKA...I think Sov Front overload is just something we have to accept.

I guess one management mechanism is to try and minimize it in the most critical sectors...




Schmart -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/1/2012 9:35:18 AM)

Yeah, it's kinda the nature of the beast. I also relatively ignore C&C in 1941. I figure it's also more historical that way... I wait until the first blizzard to tighten things up a bit. I leave extra armies with Stavka. My favourite turn when playing the Russians is always when Voronezh Front arrives! [:)] That's the point when things start getting better C&C wise...




Sorta -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/11/2012 7:52:41 PM)

What are people's thought on where to attach the Shock armies? If they are attached to STAVKA or a MD so they can move around the whole front what are the downsides?

Losing the MD command role so what really?




turtlefang -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/11/2012 9:10:07 PM)

Front HQ remains a major problem for a while. I usually try to keep them within the command limits and overload STAVKA so I can maintain some flexibility as the situation improves later in the game.

Typically in 41 I try to organize each front with 4 armies each with 8 infantry divisions and two infantry bgs. I will then have one army with whatever mountain divisions I can save and a few cavalry division under STAVKA, and three or four CAV armies - ideally shock - with 9 cav divisions that will convert to 3 corps + 1 more in December - these remain under STAVKA.

All my arm bgs stay usually go under one of my MDs just to relieve pressure on STAVKA. I disband all the AT regiments if they haven't already died. Any "extra" troops go under MD districts - usually Moscow or Karkov - until I'm ready to transfer them to the fight.

Any armies under STAVKA I try to keep in quiet areas and out of the axis main drive. The exception are the CAV armies and the lone mountain/cav army - in many cases, I will "commit" STAVKA to acting as a front during the blizzard to keep these moving forward.

As other have said, its a mess in 41/early 42. You do the best you can. This format keeps me somewhat organized but it doesn't allow much customization. But then again, I get overwhelmed if I try too much customizing and forget what's where.







IdahoNYer -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/13/2012 6:22:33 PM)

Well, as my PBEM moves into Blizzard, I've found that keeping the Fronts with 3-4 armies works pretty well in maintaining CC. STAVKA controlled armies one the fanks of the Fronts also seems to work well - and allows maximum flexibility to shift a large force rapidly without expending a prohibitive amount of points in shifting an army from one Front to another.

These armies are then the usual suspects to attach to newly created Fronts - already seasoned a bit in combat and perhaps victories.

Units behind the lines digging forts remain a question - I usually don't attach them to an army, and they remain attached directly to either a MD or STAVKA. This helps in moving one or two divisions into the line when they are full strength and at 40 or so experience, rather than waiting for an entire army to shift.




hfarrish -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/13/2012 10:27:14 PM)


Related question for the board - does the Soviet player need to create armies to keep up with demand, or should enough be coming through in the reinforce process? I seem to be getting a bit thin on Army HQs but the create cost is not ideal.




Flaviusx -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/13/2012 10:50:28 PM)

I'm having to make up to 3-5 extra armies over what the reinforcement schedule provides.





Schmart -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/13/2012 11:20:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


Related question for the board - does the Soviet player need to create armies to keep up with demand, or should enough be coming through in the reinforce process? I seem to be getting a bit thin on Army HQs but the create cost is not ideal.


To match historical numbers, you will need to create 5 Tank Armies from Jul 42 to Jan 43 and a 6th Tank Army in Jan 44. WitE is short about 10-15 Army HQs in 42-43 (not including Tank Armies), however historically roughly the same number of HQs were withdrawn or disbanded later in the war. In other words, there is an expansion of Army HQs in the middle period of the war and then a contraction in the later part, but the game will provide you with the right number of Army HQs that you will finish the war with (excepting Tank Armies). Unfortunately in it's current state, building the historical number of Army HQs in WitE is an excessive cost to the Russian player. Like Flavius points out, a few extras will definitely help. The best time to build them would probably be in the first half of 1943 when APs become less of a crunch.




turtlefang -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/14/2012 12:17:55 AM)

I fall into Flav's camp - I end up making 3 to 5 combine arms armies over what given in the game plus however many tank armies I end up with - usually six to eight. And it usually does happen sometime in 43 when I'm in the process of converting infantry divisions to infantry corps.

While I understand the historical issue, my force creation doesn't follow the Soviet historical force build. I target 450 infantry divisions (150 infantry corp), 24 to 30 tank corps, 12 to 15 mech corps, and 30 to 40 artillery divisions plus a few mountain divisions (however many I can save) and 45+ cav divisions (15+ corps) - I usually don't replace any cav division that get killed as you get more than enough. So I need the command structure to support that force level.

If you target a different force level - and I'm not proposing mine as right - then you need to plan your command structure around what you are planning. So decide what you think your long term force structure will be, and then build your command structure toward that end.




Schmart -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/14/2012 12:24:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
...my force creation doesn't follow the Soviet historical force build. I target 450 infantry divisions (150 infantry corp), 24 to 30 tank corps, 12 to 15 mech corps, and 30 to 40 artillery divisions plus a few mountain divisions (however many I can save) and 45+ cav divisions (15+ corps)...


Erm...that pretty much is the historical force structure! [;)]




Flaviusx -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/14/2012 2:42:32 AM)

The annoying thing is that once you finally get the Romanian and Polish armies you'll have too many and can then disband some. If you're willing to wait long enough for those, you could probably skip the extra HQ builds, but that's a long time coming. You eventually reach a point where every Front can control 5 armies and the reinforcement schedule doesn't quite fill that out until those conditional HQs arrive.




turtlefang -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/14/2012 3:34:06 AM)

It's similar to the Soviet forces in 1945 but actually less. Going from memory, as I don't have my books with me right now, the Soviets:

- Fielded about 70 to 80 independent tank BGs
- Approximately 30 to 40 mech and motorize infantry BG
- Close to 250 art BG/Mtr BG/AT BGs
- About 60 more infantry divisions
- And fewer tank corps (if I remember right, the Soviets built 24 tank and 13 mech corps)
- 2 Tank divisions that were maintained under the 39/40 TOE and never reorganized; continued to be equiped with BT5/BT7s stationed in the Far East

While some of the forces were deployed in the Far East, the one's deployed in the Far East were more than made up by the "Allies" recruited from the Poles, Rums and others after they surrendered and then supported the Soviets.

I've just never found anything below the division worth building as far "map" units go - SUs are a different item.

If you actually had to build all these units AND put them under army command, it would require a massive increase in the number of armies that you need (if you actually had the admin points to create them, which I don't know if you do as I haven't tried building them).

In any case, it just shows the scale of Soviet effort - and the fact that it really would extremely difficult to stop once it got rolling. [:)]




randallw -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/14/2012 9:13:09 AM)

Under the original HQ capacity rules there wasn't a huge HQ crunch, but with the 18 CP setup i've ordered 14 combined arms ones and 13 tank army ones to handle my early 1943 army.




Sorta -> RE: Soviet Command and Control Question (9/14/2012 11:00:07 PM)

I'd like to unleash my inner accountant. Is there some way to put numbers to the hunches re 4 Shock armies being attached to a non-Front?

Assume 4 Shock armies with the same leader in the Shocks and the Front/MD:

Scenario 1 - attached to a Front only
Scenario 2- attached to a very distant MD
Sceanrio 3 - attached STAVKA

What would be the effects?




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375