Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Finish SU's??

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Finish SU's?? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Finish SU's?? - 1/8/2011 6:15:49 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1704
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
I see that the Finish HQ's have SU's but the division CU do not have the assign option in their menu, why?

Now I do not have HQ locked checked.

That HQ locked is a bit confusing, something like the ole HP calculator with reverse Polish inputs. It locks units at that HQ so other HQ's can not use the SU's, right?

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff
Post #: 1
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/8/2011 6:30:44 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5659
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Only 2 Axis Allies I have found that can have any SU assigned are the 2 Rumanian Fort Brigades. I hope they change that. At least the HQ's assign help automatically during battles if they are close enough.

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 2
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/8/2011 7:54:56 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Only 2 Axis Allies I have found that can have any SU assigned are the 2 Rumanian Fort Brigades. I hope they change that. At least the HQ's assign help automatically during battles if they are close enough.

Yep and funnily enough these two Romanian brigades can actually have multiple attachments. I too hope that Axis minor allies can get to assign SUs as well because I see no reason for them not having this facility.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 3
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/8/2011 11:38:23 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1704
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
One of the Finish HQ's I looked at had at least 12 SU's!!! But with HQ locked not selected/checked they will sit there, if I am read the locked HQ meaning correctly.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 4
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/9/2011 12:42:00 AM   
Baron von Beer

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline
locked had me scratching my head too. From what I've gathered on here, the SUs will work fine in those locked HQs. When you read it stops "movement" of SUs, it means it stops automatic reassignment, ie: OKH -> AGN -> PZG4,  not stop those SUs from joining battles within the HQ's range.  It simply makes it so the player and only the player can swap them between HQs. You send unit XXX to HQ YYY, it will remain there until you move it. Likewise, reinforcements will go to OKH/Stavka until you tell them where to go. It's the "AI keep your dirty mitts off muh stuff!" switch.

*Waiting to be told I've got it completely wrong and return to being totally clueless.  

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 5
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/9/2011 12:55:55 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5659
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Nope, that is how it works. I keep forgetting to lock OKH and now I have 4 Stug, 3 Art, 2 Pioneer waiting to be assigned. I locked it a few turns ago. I found a 16th Army Corp that had only 3 Div yet had 4 art, 7 Stug, 5 Pioneer in it. Blasted computer.

(in reply to Baron von Beer)
Post #: 6
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/9/2011 1:34:26 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

Yep and funnily enough these two Romanian brigades can actually have multiple attachments.


I'll have to double check that as a possible bug - they may have picked up some fortified zone characteristics by mistake, or it could be there intended as mobile fortified zones.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 7
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/9/2011 3:29:07 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
In fact they are Fortress Brigades found in XI Rumanian Corps.

Will Axis minor ally divisions be able to attach SUs from next patch?

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 8
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/9/2011 3:40:26 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

Will Axis minor ally divisions be able to attach SUs from next patch?


That's not in anything being tested atm.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 9
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/10/2011 9:26:23 AM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Will Axis minor ally divisions be able to attach SUs from next patch?


That's not in anything being tested atm.


that's a great pity since most minor axis ally SUs end up doing nothing for a long time. Also direct attachment of say MG, ski and AT battalions was normal during the war and it would make them a little more competitive vs the Red Army.

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 10
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/10/2011 6:28:22 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1704
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
Minor Ally SU's need to be assigned to lower command units.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 11
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/10/2011 6:30:29 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
I think it was design decision to reflect the lesser tactical/operational flexibility of the Axis Allies compared to the German tactical doctrines, but maybe a developer can comment on the design decision

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 12
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/10/2011 6:39:33 PM   
B455

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I think it was design decision to reflect the lesser tactical/operational flexibility of the Axis Allies compared to the German tactical doctrines, but maybe a developer can comment on the design decision


Hmm, nevertheless it should not effect the Finnish Army. It was very flexible and "kampfgruppes" etc were constantly formed. Also, this is off the top of my head so I could be wrong, I think in the north Germans and Finns had "kampfgruppes" composed of mixed German and Finnish units. Finnish artillery was far more flexible and more accurate than German btw.

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 13
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/10/2011 6:41:43 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Arguably the Finns should be treated differently than the other Axis minors so far as this goes and be allowed attachments.

On the bright side, the new SU commitment code should get more of the Axis minor SUs into play.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 14
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/11/2011 7:36:25 AM   
Update


Posts: 117
Joined: 10/8/2007
Status: offline
Thanks for the nice comments on Finns.

History:
Starting from the Winter War(11/39) Finns formed different Taisteluosasto (Combat team or -group, in German that would be Kampfgruppe) by taking infantry unit (size from battalion to regiment/brigade) and assigning different support units (SU's!) to it in permanent or semi-permanent way. For example: summer -41 Osasto L (Lagus) was formed by taking 1. JPr (Jager Brigade) and attaching to it one (and only) Finnish armored battalion, Motorized AT-Bn (the only one), motorized engineer Bn and extra artillery. The first three were with brigade almost a year and then were included to the armored division at the time of it's forming.

Therefore, I think that Finns should be able to assign SU's to Div (x3), Brig (x3) and Rgt (x1) on the next batch. Other Minor Axis I am not familiar enough to give exact info, but I feel that they should be also looked into.


_____________________________

Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 15
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/11/2011 10:53:32 AM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Flexibility is relative. For example the Rumanians had rather rigid artillery doctrines (corps artillery mostly) but did attach pak and machine gun battalions to particular division, especially if they were interested in holding a particular position or in assaulting one. I'm not sure about AA and indipendent horse battalions. Sometimes they even had German SUs with them mixed in as a 'stiffening' though that would be very problematic to implement and I only recollect it happening a few times.

The Hungarian army seems to have evolved over time during the war (as reflected in the TO&E upgrades). I don't know much about them so I can't really comment and they also seem to have a low number of SUs as well.

The Italians definitely attached SUs to divisions depending on particular missions. For example in the desert, following their initial collapse, they steadily reinforced their motorised and especially armoured divisions (the latter with the inclusion of Bersaglieri regiment if I remember well). So much so that they aquitted themselves very well and Ariete was especially praised even by Rommel. Also in the fighting in Tunisia, they proved quite adaptable, ironically under Messe (the general in command of the initial ICSR in Russia). 

Regarding the Finns, I was under the impression that individual divisions actually took command of any additional forces that high command decided to engage in a particular sector.

On the Slovakians, I don't know much but the Schnell division actually operated mostly as part of the Wehrmacht and was highly regarded too.

Maybe to reflect less flexibility on part of the minor Axis allies, the allowance of SUs per division could be reduced from the 3 allowed for the Germans to 2 or 1 for their allies. In game terms this would make the Finns a bit more formidable and Romanians slightly less prone to be slaughtered on the first onslaught. Speaking off the top of my head, only the Finns have sufficient SUs to actually have SUs attached directly with each division. The Romanian army is simply too big and they have only a few attachable SUs, the Hungarians have too few SUs and the Italians should have enough attachable SUs for the initial ICSR but not for the army that comes in later.

(in reply to Update)
Post #: 16
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/11/2011 1:05:41 PM   
Update


Posts: 117
Joined: 10/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Regarding the Finns, I was under the impression that individual divisions actually took command of any additional forces that high command decided to engage in a particular sector.


That is right, the division took command of any additional general support forces. The case here is that the SU's were assigned directly to these groups (the infantry unit to receive these SU's were mostly independent or detached from the divisional structure at the time), mostly by higher HQ. Sometimes even the GHQ gave an order to form a group for a task that they had in mind. The actual command relationship was determined by the situation. Sometimes groups were under divisions command, sometimes they operated as independent units. The later case was most common in flanks or in a isolated road in the middle of nowhere, so to speak.

_____________________________

Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 17
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 4:34:58 PM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: B455
Hmm, nevertheless it should not effect the Finnish Army. It was very flexible and "kampfgruppes" etc were constantly formed. Also, this is off the top of my head so I could be wrong, I think in the north Germans and Finns had "kampfgruppes" composed of mixed German and Finnish units. Finnish artillery was far more flexible and more accurate than German btw.


Finnish artillery could calculate targets fastest during the World War 2 this was largely by the fire control chart developed by General Vilho Petter Nenonen talented officer, also a brilliant scientist and inventor. This enabled the quick transfer of fire (i.e. fast switching of targets).

The new benefits of the new firing chart was numerous. It made the calculation of firing data quicker being at the same time simple enough to be used efficiently in the battlefield. It also removed the usual "bunch of small errors", that plagued the sine-technique. And if the exact position of the battery was unknown, the chart made it possible to determine it's exact position with a few ranging shots.

The fire control chart was quickly classified, as the fast fire control system was, at the time, ahead of any other system anywhere in the world.

More about Finnish artillery tactics from World War II
http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm

(in reply to B455)
Post #: 18
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 6:14:32 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1704
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I think it was design decision to reflect the lesser tactical/operational flexibility of the Axis Allies compared to the German tactical doctrines, but maybe a developer can comment on the design decision



Huh?? The why even have them?? They sit at HQ and do nothing!!?? In WIR the Fin's had attached units and they worked fine. This might be an oversite. If you want to show lack of tactical flexibility then only allow 1 SU per division.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 19
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 6:29:43 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

They sit at HQ and do nothing!!


They don't do nothing. They will join combats using the normal support unit commitment rules, the only negative from the current system is that they are not guaranteed to join combats due to direct attachment.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 20
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 6:32:44 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1704
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

They sit at HQ and do nothing!!


They don't do nothing. They will join combats using the normal support unit commitment rules, the only negative from the current system is that they are not guaranteed to join combats due to direct attachment.


None of the SU's at the Finish HQ's have been deployed to a division during a battle. Even the Germans are not doing that but I can assign SU's with the Germans.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 21
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 6:40:45 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
They are in the games I am playing.







Attachment (1)

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 22
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:04:27 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Problem is that most Axis minor allies have crappy generals which don't commit anything...

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 23
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:07:29 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
The new update that has just gone live should see a big increase in SU commitment, particularly if the HQ has not moved.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 24
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:15:16 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
ok thanks. I believe it will be further refined during the week, right?

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 25
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:20:51 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

ok thanks. I believe it will be further refined during the week, right?


I am not sure - there was some confusion as to which version became the 1.02 update. It was definitely tested and a significant improvement in SU commitment was seen.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 26
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:25:58 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 928
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
Ah ok, trying to make sense out of all the posts.

Thanks again

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 27
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:45:57 PM   
Baron von Beer

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 9/18/2003
Status: offline
If I understood Joel Billings post, 1.02 official is basically the 1.02 beta 1, while the patch with all the recently talked about fixes (leader death/reassignment, SUs etc) would be released as a 1.03 Beta sometime this week.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 28
RE: Finish SU's?? - 1/12/2011 7:51:59 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4689
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

If I understood Joel Billings post, 1.02 official is basically the 1.02 beta 1, while the patch with all the recently talked about fixes (leader death/reassignment, SUs etc) would be released as a 1.03 Beta sometime this week.


Yes you are right the SU change is not mentioned in the 1.02 change list.

I think the intention is to get the beta patch out fairly quickly.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Baron von Beer)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Finish SU's?? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164