The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (Full Version)

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



Message

HITMAN202 -> The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (10/29/2012 6:48:44 PM)

It seems sensible to spend AP to replace leaders with a 5-6 Initiative/morale/administration and 6 infantry with those with 7-8 In/Mor/Ad and 7 infantry. Thoughts ???



smokindave34 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (10/29/2012 8:16:27 PM)

As axis in '42 I prioritize my AP's as follows:

1) Re-organizing my army groups/armies/corps to ensure that none are overloaded
2) Putting my best leaders at the army group, panzer army and panzer corps (as well as any high morale infantry corps I may have saved throughout the blizzard)
3) Build forts to prepare for the eventual red steam roller!

When the initiative rolls over to the Soviets I make sure I have my highest initiative commanders in the panzers chain of command so that they have high reserve commitments.




rrbill -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (10/30/2012 1:29:54 PM)

Hitman asks a useful question, and agree to some extent here with Smok'nDave's brief answer. But not really sure because to me there's some mystery in the leader's ratings, as follows"

What's the best profile for each level of command? Halder with admin rating of 9 might be best for GHQ and replacing with an all around higher rating might reduce the effectiveness of an AG or Army, etc.

What's the effect of raising a lower ranked officer with a great profile to a higher command rank, replacing a well-rated office of higher rank?

What command level is best scrutinized for optimal assignments? Korps, Armee, or Group?

Agree that HQ/Unit assignments are 1st priority, but haven't found too much value for forts early on (for Germans.) Thinking about forts by winter 42/43.

And don't forget optimal support unit assignments.

There are a lot of demands on the AP bank.



RickInVA -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/9/2012 2:33:51 AM)

I am glad to see this asked as I was just wondering about this issue myself.

Is there any concensus on where it is best to place your best leaders? If I understand the game structure correctly each time a "check" is made "up the line" it becomes harder and harder for the check to succeed. That seems to argue for the best leaders to be at the Corps level. With the next best at the Army level, etc. Or is the possibility of the higher level leader making dozens or hundreds of checks a turn argue for the best leaders to be there?

I tend to find that games reward me more for having superior leaders at the lower levels of command as a leaders abilities are always dilluted with each step of command. In real life though, isn't it often the other way around? Sure you need competent Division and Corps leaders to carry out the strategy selected at the Army and Army Group or High Command level, but isn't that higher level organization more impactful overall? If not why do we hear so much about the Zhukovs, Pattons and Montgomerys? If we do read about Major general Nobody and how he saved the day with some amazing display of military skill, we also hear about him being promoted, so national leadership must believe that better leaders would be more impactful at higher command levels.

So what is the conventional wisdom for WITE about where your best leaders have the most impact, and do you feel that mirrors or opposed real life?



CowboyRonin -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/9/2012 3:41:07 AM)

I think it's a balancing act, and it's a pretty appropriate one. Of the leaders you listed, Patton was never more than an Army commander in the field (technically, he commanded First US Army Group before the invasion of Normany, but that was a dummy formation that was a giant deception), Montgomery did his best work as an Army commander (8th in North Africa), and Zhukov was shuttled between Fronts to shore up critical defensive situations or to lead key attacks. To add another, Rommel did his best work at lower command levels; by the time he was an Army commander, his highly personal leadership style was impairing overall effectiveness. If you keep your key commanders at low level positions (Corps/Army), they can have a very significant effect on that unit, but everyone else has weaker leadership. If you promote them up, they can provide a weaker impact over a broader area. I personally look a lot at admin ratings. High admin ratings tend to equal higher position, since the kinds of things that the higher units do (especially transferring armies between fronts) really need those admin rolls to succeed. I see people use Zhukov or Guderian as high commanders and I cringe. Those positions are just too far away for those leaders to have major effects. Frankly, some of the issue with "Major General Nobody" comes down to how histories are written; very few historians research figures beyond the flamboyant 'names', so they wouldn't know a Manton Eddy from a John Lucas from a Lawton Collins (or a Mainstein from a Guderian from a Hoth, to bring it back to WiTE land).

To sum up the 'who goes where' question - high political and administrative skills get someone promoted up; lack of those will keep them down, regardless of other skills. Combat skills are everything at corps level, and initiative is a great thing with your mechanized formations; do not forget that (and that's one of the big areas the Germans get an advantage in, IMO).



rrbill -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/9/2012 1:12:06 PM)

Thanks, Cowboy & Rick, for your insights. And thanks Hitman for the thread!

Not completely sure of the game's algorithms, but discussion has me thinking of some experiments vs. AI. Political 9's at the highest 2 levels and initiative 9's at the intermediate levels. For sure, highest possible mech or foot ratings at the lowest level that can be managed. And the weakest at the least active venues. Guess I'll resurrect Halder at the top.

The interplay of commanders' ratings on effects at various levels is more complex than I originally thought. Hmmm, this game has more depth than I thought, perhaps my "depth" has been discovered.

Still hoping to learn more about what others do. Especially for the Axis. But commentary on Soviets is interesting and helpful, so let's hear more.



HITMAN202 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/10/2012 10:07:53 PM)

These great comments are very insightful. Not a lot of absolute answers, but such is life . Since the Axis is on the O in "42 , I want a spear with a sharp tip and thus am focusing on the Corp leadership.



rrbill -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/11/2012 1:45:50 PM)

Thanks, hitman, again, for thread.

Am now changing over korps ldrs as possible for leaders with higher morale, initiative, inf/mech ratings. Notice that game presents choices in a very useful sequence as do not have to search far down for good choice. Usually get high value for political, too.

Makes a difference? we'll see. (1st take, yes, but how much and how to balance using APs for other needs?)



Pelton -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/12/2012 1:07:06 AM)

I start setting up for the defence in 42. I change out starting at OKH working my way down. I do not change over the armor until late 42 early 43.

You need to structure your C&C and leaders to maximise initiative, and you need to rotate armoured units in a mix of regiments and divisions. Once I am on the defensive my standard army package is 2 infantry Korps of 4-5 divisions holding an 8-9 hex frontage, with a panzer korps of 4 divs in reserve split into 6 regiments and 2 divisions. This minimises the C&C penalties and maximises the chances of reserve activation.

With a 9 initiative leader in OKH and in 3 of the 4 Army groups, 8 initiative leaders in armies and 7 initiative leaders in PZ korps, you can trigger activations in 35%+ of battles and 80% of those will produce hold results, so 10+ hold results per turn from reserve activations is easily achieveable.

I ran 2 test 1942 campaigns against 115/95 AI for 100 turns i.e. to June1944, the first without reserves, the second with reserves maxed. The front lines in the 2nd test were 20 hexes east of the first test and Soviet casualties were 800k higher.




rrbill -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/12/2012 12:08:36 PM)

If I apply Pelton's response correctly to the Axis, commander ratings are important top down and initiative is key factor in assignments. PzK ldrs are relevant, but not so much for Inf ldrs. Having mobile forces in reserve (after 41 gitgo) is important. Hmmm... not trying that just yet.

(Can't imagine playing 100 turns just to quantify some results.)

Do I have Pelton's meaning, or what?



vandev -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/12/2012 3:51:42 PM)

In the 41 axis offensive, many of the german infantry armies are not lead well. I spent good AP points bringing 9th and 4th armies up to 7 inf in the corp commands. This seemed to really help. I think changing commanders is AP well spent in 41.

Vandev



BigAnorak -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/16/2012 5:33:56 PM)

Pelton is quoting one of my posts, but he forgot to credit the quote.

I tested the 1942 campaign twice as stated, and these were the results, obviously there is a huge difference between the likely results of a game against the AI compared to a human.

Reserve mode is an extremely powerful tool in the Axis defensive armoury from late 1942 to late 1943 and can buy the time needed to stop the Soviet steamroller getting to Berlin.



HITMAN202 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/16/2012 10:16:14 PM)

Directing this discussion back to the issue of using AP points to improve the quality of German infantry corp leaders, I bring forth a specific case. Maurice von Wiktorin, the original XXVII Corp CO, has the ratings : morale 4, initiative 5, administration 6 and infantry 6. Is it worth 22 AP's to replace him with Hans Jordan, improving the Corp HQ morale +3, initiatve +2, and infantry +1 ???? I'll run a scenario of both commanders leading the XXVII against a 14 defense strength (2 units) level 3 fort !!!!



HITMAN202 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/16/2012 11:49:04 PM)

I ran 20 attacks with each, von Wikt versus Jordan, leading the four division XXVII Corp versus a 2 unit (14 D) level 3 fort hex. I wanted to make a great discovery, but alas, it didn't happened.

I had a crudy week, but enjoyed spending an hour playing this out. It's nice watchig your staff (15 souls) bust butt, making you money, while you goof around (and your employees know it !!!)

Seriously, von Wikt versus Jordan showed no real difference. The numbers (Wikt/Jor) were 15-5/14-6 won/held, 1.37/1.35 (in thousands) casualties lost (in the wins) and 3.88/3.82 casualties made.

How each leader quality impacts a battle remains a mystery , but in this specfic case the "better" rated Jordan did no better than von Wikt. I guess this shows I'm skilled at wasting AP ponts.



carlkay58 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/17/2012 12:57:59 AM)

All that you compared HITMAN was the combat rating for infantry - a 6 vs a 7. The morale probably was entered into it somewhere, but more for after combat checks (turning retreat results into routs or shattered). Initiative's main usage is in determining movement points.

So what you found was that the difference between a 6 and a 7 in infantry combat was about nil.



RickInVA -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/17/2012 12:58:34 AM)

Hitman,

From what I gather from the rules, the +3 Morale mostly impacts if they gain morale from a win of loose it from a loss, the +2 initative mostly impacts the number of movement points (so theoretically they could do more attacks in a given turn), and the +1 Infantry should impact your battle results. And it did! You improved from a 70% win ratio to a 75% win ratio, a 7% improvement. The +1 is 17% more than the 6 you had, but as there are other items that factor into combat a 7% increase in win ratio seems pretty good to me.



HITMAN202 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/17/2012 1:28:41 AM)

Wikt was 15-5 in combat results. The "better" Jordan was 14-6. The ad, RickInVA, was in Wikt;s favor, but probably well within 1 standard deviation. I was looking purely at the combat results and casualties.

Maybe looking at the "odds" would be a better measure of how the two commanders compare. But I wanted to look at the impact of their difference in just the attack.

More MP's is an issue I didn't consider. I doubt an additional 1 MP would be an earth-shaking ad. Now 2 ????



Pelton -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/17/2012 2:10:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HITMAN202

Directing this discussion back to the issue of using AP points to improve the quality of German infantry corp leaders, I bring forth a specific case. Maurice von Wiktorin, the original XXVII Corp CO, has the ratings : morale 4, initiative 5, administration 6 and infantry 6. Is it worth 22 AP's to replace him with Hans Jordan, improving the Corp HQ morale +3, initiatve +2, and infantry +1 ???? I'll run a scenario of both commanders leading the XXVII against a 14 defense strength (2 units) level 3 fort !!!!



No it is not worth it in 41.

Replasing a 6 with and 8 is.

UNLESS your setting up for 42+ He has the min 7 initiative.

Thats why I posted the 42 reserve mode set-up. If your doing for one pt of inf its 100% not worth it.

GHC players have to think long term now, the days of quick wins is over unless your playing a total newbie.

Big A's test vs AI is about right. I have used it in several games and it has real impact.

vs M60 I made the fronts very small(6 hexes) with better Int commanders. The front M60 could attack on during 43 was very dmsll because of rivers. I used infantry and panzers. In several turns I got reactions to every battle.

Now generally you can set the hole front up as 8-9 hexs per Army, but the smart way to do it is base everything on where the SHC is going to push.

So in the area where the main SHC push will come simply shorten the frontage of the army's.

So instead of 2 divisions and 6 regiments = 8 possible reactions you will have another 2 infantry divisions and 6 infantry regiments for a total of 16 possible reactions on the front 6 hexes.

You will get at least 1 reaction every battle.

In a close game or one your winning reserve reactions will basicly make the game static for all of 1943. Which in most cases means that you will win or at worst get a draw.

Its a very powerful tool very few players have had the chance to use.

I use it on the offensive also.



HITMAN202 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/17/2012 4:22:07 PM)

In my scenario comparing Witk and Jordan, I obviously excluded any attack where German reseves were triggered, but still monitored the impact of a single resrve division added to the attack. It increased success by 5-7 %.

The scenario involved the XXVII Corp with 64 K men versus a level 3 fort, 14 CV defense with 24 K men.

Most attacks against the '42 Soviet fortress will be against level 3 forts with a CV far greater than 14.

So Pelton, it doesn't seem to be worth the effort to set up reserve activation during the summer '42 German O for such a minimal benefit. And activation is so random. Also it prevents (usually) the inclusion of any activated infantry unit(s) in direct attacks the same turn. Now, armor units have so many MP's that their activation does not preclude future direct attacks the same turn, but eventually it gets ridiculous Pelton that you plan so much for so little.



randallw -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/18/2012 10:52:48 AM)

Did you track results of modified combat values vs original combat values?



HITMAN202 -> RE: The Quality of German Infantry Corp Leaders in '42 (11/18/2012 2:19:59 PM)

No, but the average combat odds , which was about 3.4 ( obviously the same with either Corp HQ leader) rose to maybe a 3.8-4.0 (a very rough estimate.)

By the way, I was humored by Pelton's off the cuff remark that +1 in a leader's infantry rating was insignicant, but a +2 meant something and worth AP expenditure. The sucker knows this game !!!!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125