Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: March Madness '42

 
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 >> RE: March Madness '42 Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:50:50 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The place where the Axis leadership edge is most pronounced is with initiative ratings. The Soviets actually do OK on admin ratings. The have a fair number of good infantry leaders, too. (They are very short on good mech leaders. The historical tank army leaders I have always thought to be severely underrated, excepting Rotmistrov, who is arguably overrated.)

Edit. Carlkay beat me to it.

The thing Helio doesn't get and refuses to get is that the Soviet have many many more demands on their budget than the Germans do. In AAR after AAR we see the Germans accumulating and sitting on a very large AP reserve. This doesn't really happen with the Sovs until 1944 or so.


Not to mention that real talent - as in being able to consistently get victories out of dicey odds - in the Red Army officer corps is limited to a few individuals, who if you want to get the most out of them, make you to spend a lot of AP reattaching them.

Actually a big AP pool is something which is almost mandatory for both sides in order to undertake an offensive with success. The thing is that either side spends those in a different way.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 12/18/2011 3:52:49 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 151
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 3:53:58 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1407
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The German army has many constraints down the line, but APs just aren't one of them. Armament point production is possibly still to low. Manpower is obviously an issue. But APs? I have yet to see a single AAR where this the case.

We have some late war AARs going on right now. I do not see any of these German players talking about their AP problems in any of them. This is your hobby horse alone.



At a certain point, for Germany APs aren't important, but that point comes after June 1942 and Army Group A&B. I'm very concerned with this inefficiency in 1941, where Germany consistently under-performs its historic predecessor. This is part of the reason.

Now, I'm not talking about Moscow or Leningrad stuff, so don't throw in red herrings. Those are 'excesses' (for lack of a better word) enabled by the supply system and have almost nothing to do with Admin. I am talking about administrative efficiency, which is too low for Germany in the first year, and too high for the Soviet Union in the same time period (I'll leave 43+).

You apologists for bad game design KEEP saying "but no, this isn't true because X, Y, and Z". To which I respond: keep your issues separate. We're not talking about initiative, we're not talking about combat, and we're not talking about supply. We're talking about administrative efficiency as measured by the cost to do things with your AP. Germany can NOT create SUs or divisions, so we can't compare there. But the fact that the Soviet Union has this efficiency advantage in moving divisions around means it has more AP than it should to create forts, SUs, and units, and keeps the 1941 army super-efficient in terms of command and control.

I believe the math I've shared proves the AP efficiency is true, it's significant. Its consequence is both to deprive Germany of territory it took historically, and it is also part of the reason that the Soviet run-away defense is equivalent to a 1986 NATO defense: the cost to switch divisions around is entirely too low, and the Soviet army as a result is administratively entirely more efficient than it should be in the first year.

Just because you don't see it, does not mean it is insignificant.
Hell, you never 'saw' the difference in efficiency in their AP expenditures to begin with, and you probably still deny the math now.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 152
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:13:46 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2253
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Helio - I am sorry if I did not notice that your argument is currently focused on re-assigning divisions. If you feel that this is a make/break point for the game for you, I am sorry but I do not see that this will change in the future. I just don't agree that this is a major focus in the game. By the time it really matters for the war, the Soviets have gone to a corps based command structure that brings the AP cost to comparable to the Axis costs. In order to be able to do the historical shifting around of divisions that the Soviets did in 41 - 42, the Soviets need to have the AP cost to do so at a low level - or you have to increase their Admin Points as mentioned above - which would also bring the Axis players to scream about it - and rightfully so.

Axis Army commanders on Turn 1:

9th Army: Adolf Strauss 4/5/6/7 3/6/1/1
6th Army: Walter von Reichenau 8/7/6/7 5/6/1/1
4th Pzr Grp: Erich Hoepner 2/4/7/7 7/7/1/1
4th Army: Gunther von Kluge 9/9/8/8 4/7/1/1
3rd Pzr Grp: Hermann Hoth 4/6/8/7 8/7/1/1
2nd Pzr Grp: Hienz Guderian 5/7/9/8 9/7/1/1
2nd Army: Maximilian von Weichs 7/7/7/7 5/7/1/1
1st Pzr Grp: Ewald von Kleist 5/7/8/7 8/7/1/1
18th Army: Georg von Kuchler 5/6/7/7 5/7/1/1
17th Army: Carl von Stulpnagel 2/4/5/6 3/5/1/1
16th Army: Ernst Busch 6/7/7/7 5/7/1/1
11th Army: Eugen von Schobert 4/5/5/5 3/6/1/1

Average values:
Mrl = 6.2
Ini = 7.8
Admin = 6.8
Mech = 5.4
Inf =6.6

Soviet Front commanders on Turn 1:

Western MD: Dmitry Pavlov 1/3/5/6 4/6/1/1
Orel MD: Fyodor Remezov 6/5/3/5 2/4/1/1
Odessa MD: Yakov Cherevichenko 5/4/3/6 3/5/1/1
Moscow MD: Ivan Tyulenov 6/5/4/5 3/5/1/1
Leningrad MD: Markian Popov 6/6/5/6 5/6/1/1
Kiev MD: Mikhail Kirponos 5/5/5/6 3/6/1/1
Kharkov MD: Aleksandr Chernikov 5/4/3/3 2/4/1/1
Baltic MD: Fyodor Kuznetsov 7/5/3/6 3/4/1/1
Volga MD: Vasily Gerasimenko 8/6/3/5 2/5/1/1
Urals MD: Flipp Ershakov 5/5/4/5 2/4/1/1
North Cauc MD: Ivan Konev 7/7/8/7 6/7/1/1

Average Values:
Mrl = 5
Ini = 3.9
Admin = 5.8
Mech = 3.2
Inf = 5.1

Axis Advantages:
Mrl = 6.2/5 = 1.24 -> 24% advantage
Ini = 7.8/3.9 = 2.0 -> 100% advantage
Admin = 6.8/5.8 = 1.17 -> 17% advantage
Mech = 5.4/3.2 = 1.69 -> 69% advantage
Inf = 6.6/5.1 = 1.29 -> 29% advantage

Note that to see the proper % advantage that the Axis has over the Soviets, you divide the Axis by the Soviets to give the ratio, the other way shows the disadvantage the Soviets have, which is a different statistical number and meaning.

To replace Pavlov with Zhukov it requires 17 AP - one third of a turn's AP for the Soviets! Also note that I included EVERY MD commander in the Soviet calculations even though the Urals, Volga, and North Caucasus MDs will not participate in the first few months of the war.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 153
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:20:51 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The Soviets do get the better high command leader though! Boris > Halder.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 154
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:21:13 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1407
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


Not to mention that real talent - as in being able to consistently get victories out of dicey odds - in the Red Army officer corps is limited to a few individuals, who if you want to get the most out of them, make you to spend a lot of AP reattaching them.

Actually a big AP pool is something which is almost mandatory for both sides in order to undertake an offensive with success. The thing is that either side spends those in a different way.


/edit Carlkay this refutes your points: the force multiplier effect of switching divisions obviates the inferior command ratings for combat. Soviets, as demonstrated in this post, can more cheaply re-assign combat divisions to the great commanders over replacing commanders. Thus, you can infinitely stream great divisions into great commands for maximal combat power and force amplification.

Okay, here is a downstream consequence of an AP cost of 1 to switch divisions as Soviet:

Let's argue that super-awesome Soviet commander with all 8s for his leadership values is in command of 1.Soviet Army

1.Soviet Army has 10 divisions (20CP) and each are identical in TOE, Morale, and Experience

Germany attacks 1.Soviet Army and damages 5 divisions, setting them down 15 in morale and 50% in TOE.

1.Soviet Army is now in dire straits with 5 divisions to defend its sector.

But behind it is 2.Soviet Army with 10 divisions in a reserve sector nearby to the east and 2.Soviet Army was not attacked. 2.Soviet Army's commander has 5 leadership values everywhere.

Well, I don't want to swap 1.Soviet Army with 2.Soviet Army, because 1.Soviet has the super leadership. So what I'm going to do is move 5 divisions forward from 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs. Meanwhile, I'm going to move the 5 divisions from 1.Soviet to Stavka for 5 APs, or maybe 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs (but the advantage of STAVKA is that next time you need to switch them, you will pay 0 APs).

This is cheaper than switching the commanders. In fact, it's cheaper for Soviet divisions to switch out of their HQ at any level than it is to switch an HQ from one command to another. This becomes a force multiplier for Soviet leadership. Only have 5 good commanders? No problem, you can move fresh divisions in and out of those commanders' units for 1/3rd the cost Germany would.

Here is one of the exploitations that can be achieved by this AP efficiency (it's one that I do as Soviet):
My 5 great commanders can simply swap divisions in and out of their command, with damaged divisions swapped seamlessly and cheaply so they can fall back into the reserve position with 2.Army or Stavka. I don't believe these kinds of reserve movements were commonplace in 1941, but rather this kind of tactic was not efficient for the Soviets until mid 1943.

Now you've moved 10 divisions around for 10 APs, or 20% of the turn's AP. If you moved the ones from 1.Soviet that were damaged to Stavka, that's where the cost ends. If you moved them into 2.Soviet, you might spend 5 more APs to move them again later. Odds are most Soviet players are going to put them in Stavka, because the disadvantage to being there is negligible, and the advantage of 0 AP transfer is huge.

Germany, meanwhile, has 1.Corps with 4 divisions attached to 1.Army.
Blizzard is coming, and Germany needs to move 2 divisions to OKH so they can winter in Germany, and it needs to move 1 of the 2 divisions to the 1.Army level so it can recover in the rear (or maybe be set to reserve to support the front line better).

Germany will pay, prior to leadership checks, 21 points for these transfers, or more than 40% of the turn's AP to do 1/3 the reorganization. Interestingly, Germany would likely only have a 15% better chance than the Soviet to reduce the cost of transfer by one-half, however, for the Soviets one-half of 1 is still 1, so that leadership difference is immaterial to their side. For Germany, as has been previously stated, your corps and your army are the only meaningful rolls and backups, because your Army Group is over command. If your army is over its CP (about 1/3rd chance), then your corps HQ is probably the only roll you can count on to succeed. Soviets, meanwhile, at both Front and Army HQ level,a re probably not over-command, so they will have the same number of tiers for commander help as Germany (again, with only a 15% superiority in German leadership values prior to over-command penalties).

So for 2x the cost that Soviets pay, Germany can move half the number of divisions that the Soviet will. It is particularly a-historic doctrinally to pay so much to go from your corps to its parent army.

This is acceptable to you folks? Since this appears to be the case, it's appearing more and more likely that I just need to leave you guys to your badly designed game; my efforts to improve it are not appreciated, let alone seen as valid.

None of my data argue the other side of super-Soviet efficiency, which is all the divisions coming back for free and assigned to Stavka - this is another huge cost savings for the Soviet enabling them even greater flexibility and proficiency in organizing their army.

The important of efficiently organized commands cannot be under-stated, and the Soviet Union is far superior in organizing that Army than Germany. In the first year of the war, this is completely unrealistic and a-historic.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 12/18/2011 4:34:55 PM >

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 155
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:25:13 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Carlkay: and what is basically the only rating that matters at that level? Admin. The rest isn't important at all, so the case you're trying to make isn't solid. Yes, Soviet commanders have worse ratings on average, but that is largely irrelevant because the rating that matters at that level is admin.

Also: "the Germans are sitting on a pile of AP's later on and have nothing to do with it" can not in any way be used as an excuse for why the Germans would need to spend a lot of AP's on straightening out their command structure in a way that, for the same action, is more costly to them than to the Soviets.

If anything, Soviet command and doctrine were both very inflexible initially. Disbanding all frontline and rear area corps HQ's within 10 days of the start of Barbarossa would've created an enormous chaos in terms of C&C. In the game, it's by far the most efficient way to straighten out initial C&C. That's also why I'd prefer it if disbanding corps HQ's wasn't possible, it's really starting to annoy me that the Soviets never, under any circumstances, are forced to use a mixture of bad to good leaders, but can choose to use mediocre to good ones.

As to corps reassignment costs: corps also have 2 to 3 times as many men as German divisions, so if you'd say that's acceptable or logical within the constraints of the game (that their reassignment costs are 2 to 3 times as high), why do you also think it's perfectly fine and logical that a Rifle division, with about 0.5-0.75 times the manpower of a German division, requires only 1 AP usually?

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 12/18/2011 4:29:59 PM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 156
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:29:06 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pieter, for whatever it is worth, I've stopped disbanding corps HQs. Not cost effective anymore imo. You're better off now doing mass disbands of the SAD airbases and just waiting for the corps to autodisband.

Soviet leadership just doesn't affect battle results as much anymore. (Why? Who knows? But they don't, not in 41.)

That takes away a lot of the incentive to disband the corps.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 157
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 4:30:54 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1033
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Was going to post the same

No point disbanding corps

I think I have one or two sat in Ufa in Jan '42 waiting to auto disband

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 158
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 5:15:49 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


Not to mention that real talent - as in being able to consistently get victories out of dicey odds - in the Red Army officer corps is limited to a few individuals, who if you want to get the most out of them, make you to spend a lot of AP reattaching them.

Actually a big AP pool is something which is almost mandatory for both sides in order to undertake an offensive with success. The thing is that either side spends those in a different way.


/edit Carlkay this refutes your points: the force multiplier effect of switching divisions obviates the inferior command ratings for combat. Soviets, as demonstrated in this post, can more cheaply re-assign combat divisions to the great commanders over replacing commanders. Thus, you can infinitely stream great divisions into great commands for maximal combat power and force amplification.


Hey Ho Silver! Your line of reasoning fails as soon as one considers space and time. If anybody could move from one side of the map to the other at 0 MP's cost, then you'll be right. But the reality is that you don't want to move your units for the sake of it, and you actually need time to form up an attacking force. I think WitE models very well the principle of concentration in operational warfare. I switch commanders less often than units because swapping these can be more expensive, indeed. But reforming whole commands - for a fully fleshed Army with 12 Rifle Divisions - would cost no less than 24 AP's (unless you're attaching everyone you take out of that Army to the STAVKA). And much more than that if it has Tank, Cav or Rifle Corps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Well, I don't want to swap 1.Soviet Army with 2.Soviet Army, because 1.Soviet has the super leadership. So what I'm going to do is move 5 divisions forward from 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs. Meanwhile, I'm going to move the 5 divisions from 1.Soviet to Stavka for 5 APs, or maybe 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs (but the advantage of STAVKA is that next time you need to switch them, you will pay 0 APs).

This is cheaper than switching the commanders. In fact, it's cheaper for Soviet divisions to switch out of their HQ at any level than it is to switch an HQ from one command to another. This becomes a force multiplier for Soviet leadership. Only have 5 good commanders? No problem, you can move fresh divisions in and out of those commanders' units for 1/3rd the cost Germany would.


And here you forget to consider the SU's those Army commands have attached. I tend to have SU's concentrated in particular commands, sometimes something like 20 SU's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Here is one of the exploitations that can be achieved by this AP efficiency (it's one that I do as Soviet):
My 5 great commanders can simply swap divisions in and out of their command, with damaged divisions swapped seamlessly and cheaply so they can fall back into the reserve position with 2.Army or Stavka. I don't believe these kinds of reserve movements were commonplace in 1941, but rather this kind of tactic was not efficient for the Soviets until mid 1943.


Excuse me? Reattaching means issuing march orders, switching communication networks, etc. Where did you read that the Soviets had trouble changing this in 1941 other than during the few first 48 hours of the war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Germany, meanwhile, has 1.Corps with 4 divisions attached to 1.Army.
Blizzard is coming, and Germany needs to move 2 divisions to OKH so they can winter in Germany, and it needs to move 1 of the 2 divisions to the 1.Army level so it can recover in the rear (or maybe be set to reserve to support the front line better).


Why don't you reattach them directly to OKH? Why having them attached to the superior level? You're wasting AP's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
So for 2x the cost that Soviets pay, Germany can move half the number of divisions that the Soviet will. It is particularly a-historic doctrinally to pay so much to go from your corps to its parent army.


Why are you trying to attach to Army? And talking about "doctrines" in what is basically bureaucracy makes me chuckle. The only doctrine is to minimize it. There might be a case for units not being able to be reattached more than once in one single turn - as happens with Support Units. But nothing of what you've said touches this even in the most subtle tangential way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is acceptable to you folks? Since this appears to be the case, it's appearing more and more likely that I just need to leave you guys to your badly designed game; my efforts to improve it are not appreciated, let alone seen as valid.


I can appreciate them, but not the many implicit insults and the feeling that you're speaking to us as if we were a bunch of retarded kids. More when many of your observations are either factually wrong, misleading or incomplete. Note I said "many", not all of them. And even more when you, who has noted many times on these forums disregarding historical literature - other than Paul Carell's I'd bet - ridiculing others by quoting or paraphrasing it or reference to other games - other than Hearts of Iron which I wouldn't qualify as a good one by any measure - now ends every other sentence with the words "ahistorical". That makes me to take your posts with a shovel of salt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
None of my data argue the other side of super-Soviet efficiency, which is all the divisions coming back for free and assigned to Stavka - this is another huge cost savings for the Soviet enabling them even greater flexibility and proficiency in organizing their army.


The same happens for the Germans, new units appear attached to OKH, rebuilds as well. And your point is? Now, if I see a problem with this is that the Soviets should perhaps not be awarded Rebuilds for free - other than those of Tank Divisions into Tank Brigades - but rather have their AP allotment increased. Are you now going to get a hold of this and do as Pelton does and convert it into a personal crusade?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The important of efficiently organized commands cannot be under-stated, and the Soviet Union is far superior in organizing that Army than Germany. In the first year of the war, this is completely unrealistic and a-historic.


Also Red Army structure is far simpler in that first year. I don't see a reason why a simpler command structure should be more difficult to manage. On the contrary.

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 12/18/2011 5:43:30 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 159
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 6:01:36 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Considering Soviet casualty rates, you might actually be better off not disbanding corps HQ's from that perspective as well, as the men you send to the front are likely to die or become POWs soon after arriving.

As to leader rolls: we don't really know what part of the final CV is truly changed by leader rolls. One thing to keep in mind when looking at the modified CV is that lots of men tend to be disrupted, so you actually need a couple of good rolls to maintain your original CV as the Soviets. The Germans now get doubled CV compared to their original CV fairly often, but that's in part due to the many disrupted Soviet elements not being able to return fire.

With more disruption, German attacks would see less inflated CV's probably.

As to Soviet leader quality: one thing that many, including the testers, forget and one of the reasons why I'm not always a big fan of the current leader rating system which means that if a leader needs a combat rating higher than 6, he needs it at the beginning of the game, is that the Soviet leaders had barely any experience with what at the time was modern warfare. They fought a few smaller conflicts against Japan and Poland, and a war that went rather poorly against the Finns, but that's it.

The German leadership on the other hand has by the start of Barbarossa overran Poland, (Denmark,) Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, (Luxembourg,)France, Yugoslavia and Greece. Although a number of lessons learned were quickly lost and a number of lessons were overlooked, many German leaders at least had a taste of what fighting a real war against an inferior to equal foe was like.

The Soviets also had the problem of having to reorganize a large part of their army/reinvent it. The German army late in the war was in an organizational sense not all that different from the early days aside from units and thus commands being smaller in terms of the number of troops being commanded. As an example, because mechanized rating leaders are often mentioned: the Soviets in June 1941 could not realistically have known what a Tank army would look like, not to mention the Tank armies in the game (with 6-7 corps each), and many leaders with decent mechanized ratings had little idea of what modern armoured units were capable of, because the Soviets were only slowly establishing them in practice after creating impressive mobile units on paper.

As an aside: I'm starting to wonder if there's a real benefit to using artillery regiments as support. The Soviets rarely disrupt much when attacking, at least in 1941, and those artillery regiments do influence the number of other elements that can fire (if above a certain number of units involved in the battle).

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 160
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 6:07:47 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pieter, I'm leaning towards mostly just keeping them in STAVKA until at least mud. For armament point reasons alone. Dialing them down to 50% helps, but maybe just hiding them until the rasputitsa is better.

The only place I'm inclined to still use them in by Leningrad and that's 100% a delaying action to keep PG4 occupied as long as possible.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 161
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 6:22:03 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Yes. The artillery regiments only fire a handful of times, usually counterbattery fire, and don't tend to do much else, at least not when attacking. However, replacing losses is costly in terms of armament points so I'm fairly seriously considering at least cutting their numbers down somewhat. I now have 4 in each army against the AI, but they don't seem to be doing all that much. The VVS is FAR more effective at disrupting defenders than my artillery.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 12/18/2011 6:23:53 PM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 162
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 6:37:59 PM   
Callistrid

 

Posts: 428
Joined: 8/11/2011
Status: offline
I belive the soviet has enough AP, just like the german has.
On the T01 with the 30 AP, the german can modify the OOB, because the OKH is so close, and the attach cost is just 1-2 AP.
I always use the 1 army - 3 corps - 4 div, and transfer the 2nd army to the AGN, less weigh the AGC. plus all security divs directly attach to the OKH.

< Message edited by Callistrid -- 12/18/2011 6:39:56 PM >

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 163
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 6:57:02 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1407
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Hey Ho Silver! Your line of reasoning fails as soon as one considers space and time.

It works when I play Soviet just fine.

Consider also the known ability of the Soviet at any period in the war to move multiple armies by rail as an element of 'surprise', and you can see that your space/time exception is a novelty concept. There is no problem with moving 10 divisions from 20 in a local area - this creates no negative tradeoff on digging. I'll draw you pictures with my Soviet game if it will help you conceptualize how I do this in practice. The reality is that the Soviets have superior C&C to Germany for the first year of the war, at a minimum.

This is not moving units 'for the heck of it'. It is reinforcing your forward defense and moving your weakened units into reserve status - just as the Soviet did in the real war. The difference is that you focus on supporting commanders, not armies.

Further, when one considers the absolute plethora of divisions and brigades that the Soviet Union receives in 1941, you can clearly see that a little movement of some of the important divisions (the ones under your 5 good commanders) does not significantly negatively impact Soviet defense in 1941, because your 1941 defense relies primarily on ZOCs and movement costs for the Axis, not on actually fighting him in combat (because Soviet offensive CVs are too low in 1941 as a rule).

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Well, I don't want to swap 1.Soviet Army with 2.Soviet Army, because 1.Soviet has the super leadership. So what I'm going to do is move 5 divisions forward from 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs. Meanwhile, I'm going to move the 5 divisions from 1.Soviet to Stavka for 5 APs, or maybe 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs (but the advantage of STAVKA is that next time you need to switch them, you will pay 0 APs).

This is cheaper than switching the commanders. In fact, it's cheaper for Soviet divisions to switch out of their HQ at any level than it is to switch an HQ from one command to another. This becomes a force multiplier for Soviet leadership. Only have 5 good commanders? No problem, you can move fresh divisions in and out of those commanders' units for 1/3rd the cost Germany would.


And here you forget to consider the SU's those Army commands have attached. I tend to have SU's concentrated in particular commands, sometimes something like 20 SU's.


Actually, you're on the wrong side of imagining how to exploit Soviet C2 advantage. It is the Soviet player who creates his own SUs as he sees fit, minus some that start the game in play (these typically go to Stavka and you have a magic Stavka train doling out SUs for 0 AP as it rails around the front; this Germany can do identically so it's no big deal).

Indeed, you would RATHER build SUs only in the good Army HQs, saving further AP on the backup Army HQs that you're only using as refit placeholders for the units you are filtering back to the rear after they get mauled in combat (but more than likely you're leaving damaged units in Stavka for the AP advantage it brings - again, with 400 divisions and 100 brigades, your map is not hurting for counters such that it hurts to put units in rear areas in Stavka command while they sit for 3-5 turns).

Put all your SUs into the armies with your good commanders, and you have even more incentive to swap divisions in and out rather than commanders or to move whole armies forward and back as fighting units (which they were)

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Germany, meanwhile, has 1.Corps with 4 divisions attached to 1.Army.
Blizzard is coming, and Germany needs to move 2 divisions to OKH so they can winter in Germany, and it needs to move 1 of the 2 divisions to the 1.Army level so it can recover in the rear (or maybe be set to reserve to support the front line better).


Why don't you reattach them directly to OKH? Why having them attached to the superior level? You're wasting AP's.

It's about Reserves and how they work in WitE that requires you to move units to Army level command (as Germany; it would be fronts for Soviets at the combat scale to which I refer). Because when one contemplates how reserves work, you want your reserve units in an HQ one tier above (or below, but above is more sensible) the level of the units being attacked (i.e. frontline units).

For Germany, corps divisions at the front, divisions on reserve get attached to the Army for maximal ability to support the corps below (so a panzer division attached to 6.Army would be able to support all 6.Army corps in range). This commitment to reserve from a corps to an army (and then later, going back to the corps for offensive operations) would have been as easy (at worst) a transfer bureaucracy for Germany as it is for the Soviets, but Germany pays 7 times the cost for such a switch. If that's not FAIL to you, then I suggest your biases in analyzing the issue need much further examination.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
So for 2x the cost that Soviets pay, Germany can move half the number of divisions that the Soviet will. It is particularly a-historic doctrinally to pay so much to go from your corps to its parent army.


Why are you trying to attach to Army?

Explained above. You need to build your command structure around the rules of the game, which dictate that for reserves to be optimally able to commit, they should be at an Army HQ level (when dealing with defenders at the Corps HQ level).

quote:


And talking about "doctrines" in what is basically bureaucracy makes me chuckle. The only doctrine is to minimize it.


Here again, you're not using enough imagination. Admin Points is the abstraction of Bureaucracy at the command level. It is anathema to think that the 1941 Soviet army was bureaucratically as efficient as the 1941 German army (mind you, in WitE the Soviets are superior in 1941). If you think otherwise, you're quite insane, and I can't explain to you why you're insane if you believe that such was the case.

Based on general literacy levels alone (to say nothing of the climate of fear brought about by the officer purges), any sociologist would readily tell you that the Germans are more capable of operational agility than the Soviets. If you want to defend the contrary, by all means, but I won't entertain such horrible output of thought. At a certain point, people tend to revert to deconstructionism in defense of the existing system, and that's what I feel you're doing here in my opinion, whether you know it or not. Certainly in arguing that I have not tangibly touched on the issue of hyper- and hypo-command efficiency faced by Soviets and Germany (respectively), I think I've objectively provided good data to the conversation.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
This is acceptable to you folks? Since this appears to be the case, it's appearing more and more likely that I just need to leave you guys to your badly designed game; my efforts to improve it are not appreciated, let alone seen as valid.


I can appreciate them, but not the many implicit insults and the feeling that you're speaking to us as if we were a bunch of retarded kids.

I'm trying to phrase things in an inoffensive way, but I can't please everyone. I think on the whole the War in the East community has bought into a group-think and doesn't realize it, that the Soviet Union has way too little of the offensive capability it should have in 1941, and it has way too much of an administrative advantage in 1941.

I can't provide good input on how to solve the first part of that problem (Soviet offensive CV). I can provide good input on how to solve the second part of that problem. I would certainly understand the need to remedy the first problem before the second, because there's no point fixing the second if the first still remains; it would only gut the Soviet Union further when Germany is operationally too flexible due to the supply system shortcomings. But that people continue to tell me that the Soviet command and control system is just fine as now implemented, and clearly that's not aligned to history.

And yes, I don't care about the history. I'm really specialized around a few key battles or a few key units, myself, but I'm not historically ignorant, which is what many of the history buffs would want me to believe about myself. If you want a list of world war 2 books on my library, I'm pretty sure it will impress you (not to mention the costs of these books, most of which were gifts from historians...)

I'm a game player, nationally ranked (in my past) at Advanced Squad Leader, Starcraft 2 (PC game), Warhammer (fantasy and 40K), and back in days long ago, games like Third Reich and panzer leader. I'm telling you that there is an artificial constraint on German AP that impacts 1941, and an artificial freedom on Soviet AP that impacts 1941 and 1942.

My overall opinion on WitE is that while Germany can improve on its predecessor's performance by about 20 percent in terms of preserving the Army over where it was historically in 1941, but that the Soviet Union can improve its performance by 50 percent. The game balance decisions overwhelmingly (overwhelmingly!) advantage the Soviet Union.

The end result is that you have a game where the winning side gets balanced upward and the losing side gets balanced downward. In other words, it would be as if War in the Pacific gave the Allies the freedoms to improve on their superiority, and Japan was constricted not just to the decisions it made historically, but that the Allied side is unconstrained by his side's.

I have been trying to alert and/or influence the playtest/thought leader/Matrix representative community to a problem that I've mathematically shown exists, and yet I'm getting these wild "facts are not facts" arguments from people who are erstwhile sensible people. I can understand not liking ME personally, but my argument is valid, supported, and apparently unconvincing. Meh, people defend the status quo and resist change; I'm used to it. I'm a Lean/Six Sigma process analyst; I make a living improving systems that people say are working fine and can't be improved on.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 164
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 8:33:56 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
If I understand correctly Table 12.2.1 of the manual, the basal transfer cost of a division is the same for Axis and Soviet (6 points). In the case of the Axis (but not the Soviets) this value is further increased adding the political rating of the leader losing the unit (and then the Admin rating of the leader receiving the unit is substracted for both Soviet and Axis). In this case, it is not about bureaucracy or efficiency, it’s (I think) the way the game supposedly simulates how reluctant were the German Generals to transfer units under his command, even when ordered. Maybe AP are not only "paperwork", but also "political friction", at least in this case?


Please note that the Table 12.2.1 could have been modified in subsequent versions: I am not fully aware of all the rule changes made in this game after its release.


< Message edited by alfonso -- 12/18/2011 8:46:55 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 165
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 9:55:28 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just want to once again point out that actual Soviet combat CV's don't double in Dec 41, they double for display purposes only due to many penalties that the Germans suffer during the first winter. As I've tried to explain in the past, the round off issue on small German CVs made us think the best way to deal with this was to double Soviet CVs being displayed instead of halving the German CVs (halving a 1 still gets you a 1). Soviet CVs in battle never change, it's the Germans that suffer reductions in battle during first winter. These penalties get smaller and smaller until they finally go away in March. I realize this is confusing. Among other changes, we are considering having the First Winter February attack CV modifiers also apply to any Snow turn in the first winter and in March 42.


Maybe the Soviet counters showing artificially doubled CV can have an asterisk on them. ( kidding )

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 166
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 11:37:19 PM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Many disagree with me. That does not make me wrong. Nor do your points, which I will now refute directly.

Say what you like about the terrible combat power of the Soviet Union in 1941: that issue is the single driving factor for the decisions that I despise about the German side. Fix the 1941 Soviet offensive ability, but quit handcuffing German gameplay by these design decisions.

How many different types of SUs do you spend your APs on?
Please describe how many railroad construction units you build per army, the number of mortar artillery you build (you know, the ones that out-perform 150mm howitzers), how many sapper battalions?
What other SUs does the perfectly efficient Red Army build when you're at the helm?




Actually in my campaign at the moment I build around 30 -40 RR construction units, total. Now I am building sappers, but still the numbers are not excessive at all. I am constrained by manpower a lot.
I also build very few mortars, unless I am arm constrained (I try not to be). If you look at losses, the artillery that fires from far does not have that many losses when troops retreat. Mortars are cannibalized by every retreat, maybe up to 50% TOE. As such, I prefer proper artillery, if I have arm to fill them.


quote:


You don't deny doing the a-historic stuff like disbanding motorized divisions to save the trucks (benefiting your blizzard offensive), disbanding corps HQs, etc. So just because you don't disband the 20 or so motorcycle regiments the game starts with, don't expect me to be sympathetic. The Soviets have too much freedom with their AP in an army that's already saving tons by the return of units attached at Stavka command.



I do not disband motorized divisions; I wait for them to disband by themselves. Actually, I use them in fight... I am only *very* careful not to get them in encirclement, which happens anyway...

quote:


FAIL.

Please define "Much Much Worse" and allow me to show you the commander's report for Soviet Front/German Army comparisons, and Soviet Army and German Corps comparisons

In the first picture in this post (because it's simplest to put 1 picture per post, subsequent posts will continue refuting the original points, and include further pictures of the actual game data; if you're reading this very recently to its being posted, I'm probably still writing refutations so come back later), you have German Armies compared to Soviet Fronts. For purposes of this discussion, we will focus only on Admin Ratings, since we are discussing the expenditure of Admin Points.

To try to measure the command difference, I added the Admin values of all 12 Generals on each side, and compared them to one another.

Please note that the German commanders in the image are actually ones that were replacing worse commanders; this is from my current game versus Cannonfodder, and I replaced several army commanders, such that you're seeing an upwardly biased German Command rating of these leaders. So in actuality, this comparison is more favorable to Germany than it ought to be when comparing Turn 1 commanders (which is what the Soviet commanders are)



Germany Admin Ratings at Army Level: 83/12 = 6.9
Soviet Admin Ratings at Front Level: 69/12 = 5.75 (rounding to 5.8)

5.8/6.9 = .84
So Germany's command superiority at Army level is about 16 percent.
To me, that does not sound like "Much Much Worse"

Now, let's immediately add more facts that are germane (LOL) to the point:
At game start, the following German armies are over command point allowances:

2.Panzer Group (-7 CP at start)
9.Army (-5 CP at start)
17.Army (-5 CP at start)
11.Army(-5 CP at start)
4.Army (-3 CP at start)



Helio, please understand that check on the army level *does not matter* unless you keep army very close to HQ. If you have the army further than 3-4 hexes from the relevant HQ, chances of successive check at the army level are maybe 5 or 10%. The immediate command matter.

This is exactly the issue for Soviets - having HQ 5 hexes from the fighting unit and leader rating of 5, the value in the checks is taken 5-5=0, which means that *all the checks* at army level are failed automatically. And, sorry to say that, you do not have enough armies (nor the AP) to keep all the HQ close. You just try. Checks by fronts are similar to those by Army Groups by Germany, and almost does not matter, unless the Front is *really close*.

quote:


Whereas on the Soviet side, fewer fronts start out of command than German armies, and more significantly, there is a noteworthy difference in how those comparative commands will straighten themselves out:

The Soviet command limit will correct itself with no meaningful requirement to spend APs:
As divisions are destroyed in the opening turn pockets, these burdens will be alleviated for zero cost in AP. By comparison, Germany has to spend AP to fix this.


As I say, the overloading of fronts almost does not matter - the checks will fail anyway most often. The only guy who can succeed in front checks for Soviet is Zhukov. All the other ones available immediately will not have any chance; Zhukov does, but you need to keep the HQ really close. I do not have the manual here, but example of calculations is given there; I remember doing the calculations and assuming that the front is 10 hexes away from the unit, the chance of success is really low. And 10 hexes from the front is rather close. Please check the manual for the exact equation (don't have it at hand).

quote:


But there is another distinction in this comparison favoring the Soviets, which is that Fronts can command "Much much" more units, so the Soviet command is not punished administratively at this level as quickly for being over CP allowances as Germany is...

When you say that Soviets don't have corps HQs, remember that German Army HQs are punished routinely through 1942 by not having sufficient command point allowance, and this punishment acts to OBVIATE ANY ADVANTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF CORPS COMMAND .

because:
Once an HQ is over its command allowance, it quickly loses its ability to make successful rolls (of all types).

What good does it do Germany to have an Army HQ roll when it is over command? What good does it do Germany to have an Army Group roll when it is also over command? From what I've read designers say: once you're over command, rolls are severely modified downward.



It is true- if it is over allowance, all checks fail. However, as Germans, you can rely on your immediate commanders, with ratings 7+ for fighting checks for inf/mot. As Soviets, you have maybe 4 or 5 leaders like that. And no, you can't have them everywhere and actually rotating units in those as you described is often not that easy. For example, when you defend Moscow, it takes at least 6-8 armies. You can use all your best leaders there (best in Russian sense is medium quality for Germany, initiative of 5, and inf of 7, morale of 5-6, mech 5, adm 6-7), but rest of your armies than have to have leaders with rating 5-6.

Once again, let me stress that the leadership is not about admin rating only, as you tried to state later on, it is not about Inf rating only, and so on and so forth. All ratings are higher for Germans, especially initiative. Which is very important.


As for your subsequent posts, you believe in what you say and do not accept arguments to the contrary. Fine. I somehow understand that you would be only happy if you could transfer divisions as Germans the same way as Soviet can and when you can create support units the same way as Soviet can. I really think you want to have the cost lowered because you want to rotate your tank divisions to HQ with more supply/fuel, to push them even further. The high AP values to certain amount stop this exploit. Yes, there are some bad side effects, like you cannot send all units you want to Germany for blizzard. [you can send your whole corps to Germany, for blizzard, without hand picking units and not doing any changes in army structure at all, they will not be in great supply, but not that bad either] However, don't you think that actually sending units to Germany during blizzard should be an exception and punished by the game? Again, high AP cost prevents you to do it too much.

In short, the whole concept of AP is that you have to make choices - and each choice is kind of costly. You cannot do everything you want, because in the end you are AP limited.

My little suggestion, get some really good German player, play as Soviets, and show everyone how overpowered Soviets are in an AAR. I will be happily reading it! Meanwhile, Pelton with his record of winning all the games will be making threads saying that Russians are overpowered, as he does not win every single game, just 80-90% of them.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 167
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/18/2011 11:58:28 PM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Toidi deserves the Order of the Red Banner. Excellent post. I especially appreciated the assessment of how long can take a turn - even in Mud - in order to get some chance.


Well, first of all I play random weather, so I need to keep my forces combat ready each turn. So what you really have to do as Soviets ['41-'43, if you are on offensive it is a bit easier]:

1. Check the results of last turn; this can be quick in mud
2. Check the pools. If some equipment [tanks/aircrafts] is missing you may micromanage some units, put them at lower TOE etc. I generally do not switch planes manually, but in rare cases when AI do not switch planes where there are none at the pool (and units still use those), I switch them manually.
3. Run the reckon. 50-100 flights. Need to pinpoint the armored enemy forces. Need to reckon all the airfields. Note where there are lots of enemy fighters intercepting, and where is relatively quiet. You will attack in those places where it is quiet. Also note where the AA defense is strong.
4. Move reserve armies in line with the armored enemy forces, so they are closer to react.
5. Check front units. If they are unready/ fatigued / very weak, rotate.
6. I you have corps, check the front corps support units. If the corps is fine in terms of TOE, but support unit is not, rotate the support unit manually. Check first whether there is a reasonable unit in terms of TOE/exp/morale in the immediate HQ, if not, get one, rotate next turn.

5&6 can take a lot of time, as I do it mostly on map ; the commander report helps only a bit [sorry, maybe I cannot use it well].

7. Check all the reserves resting in cities. If some reaches right morale/TOE, move closer to front, put in the reserve army or exchange with a front unit. Rail the new units from the far east. Decide whether to put some more units on refit, or leave them as skeletons [check manpower/arm].
8. See how many AP you have; build corps/units/support units, in line with available equipment/arm points/manpower. Build defense zones. Change leaders. Etc.
9. Air supply front units which are not green in terms of supplies. Try to optimize the position of HQ, especially if enemy has moved anyhow, so they are closest to most likely axis of attack.
10. Run units bombardments
11. Run airfield attacks

That basics, not including strategic planning for offensive/defensive, takes around 2 hours for me; maybe you can do it much quicker...

Axis players have the bonus of being able to react to weather first. So you can always prepare as axis when the weather is not as expected; you should prepare for offensive/defensive before, but still, if you don't, you will be mostly fine to do it on the turn the weather changes. Soviets do not have such a luxury - you must be prepared the turn before or else Axis will punish you severely should the weather be out of tune.

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 168
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 2:18:13 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi
Helio, please understand that check on the army level *does not matter* unless you keep army very close to HQ. If you have the army further than 3-4 hexes from the relevant HQ, chances of successive check at the army level are maybe 5 or 10%. The immediate command matter.

This is exactly the issue for Soviets - having HQ 5 hexes from the fighting unit and leader rating of 5, the value in the checks is taken 5-5=0, which means that *all the checks* at army level are failed automatically. And, sorry to say that, you do not have enough armies (nor the AP) to keep all the HQ close. You just try. Checks by fronts are similar to those by Army Groups by Germany, and almost does not matter, unless the Front is *really close*.


I'm not sure where you got this from, since it doesn't appear in the manual, that I recall. Distance to the next higher HQ is a factor, but the number of hexes you are referencing is not borne out by the documented formula in 11.3.2. Am I missing something in your argument?

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 169
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 2:47:50 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
As I wrote, I do not have the formula in front of my eyes. If I remember correctly, for the immediate command it is something like:

(Leader Rating - distance from HQ in Hexes- amount the HQ is overloaded- %HQbelowTOE/10)>roll(10)

As such, we have: (5-5-0)=0, so never > roll(10)

Same is for higher command, but the x in the dice roll (x) is much higher and distance from HQ is divided by some factor, depending on how high the HQ is. As such, there are dimishing returns.

So the formula for check is something like: (Leader rating-distance_from_HQ_in_hexes/Factor-amount of overloading of the HQ-%HQbelowTOE/10)>roll (x)

As such, if distance is high enough, there is no chance of any correct check. From what I remember the chances are nil for max leader rating and distance of 15 for front HQ and 90 for STAVKA, but maybe I am wrong there and there are some miniscule chances independent on leader rating.

Again, as I wrote before, I do not have the manual at hand here with the formula at hand, so I cannot say for sure. Need to check.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 170
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 3:12:31 AM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
You remembered the formula wrong.

Per 11.3.2 it is (for units directly attached to a command):

Random (10 + points_over_command_limit) < command rating

When that check fails, the next higher command is attempted, with a range modifier being added, and the base number being doubled for each level you go up the chain of command. So it is:

Random (10*2^(steps up chain of command) + points_over_command_limit + distance_from_HQ/range_modifier) < command rating

The range modifier is 2 for army, 3 for army group/front, 4 for High command. In addition, the distance from HQ is not checked for morale rating checks.

It is never impossible to pass a leader check.

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 171
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 3:59:54 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
quote:


Random (10*2^(steps up chain of command) + points_over_command_limit + distance_from_HQ/range_modifier) < command rating

The range modifier is 2 for army, 3 for army group/front, 4 for High command. In addition, the distance from HQ is not checked for morale rating checks.

It is never impossible to pass a leader check.



OK. Sorry about being wrong about the formula. I was pretty sure that distance to immediate HQ is taken into account in the calculations.

Anyway, the chances are affected little by the leader skill:

Say, a leader of rating 6, second chain of command, distance equal to 10 hexes, we have

random (20+0+10/2)=random(25)<6 - in 20.83% of cases the check will be fine.
If the leader rating is 8, this changes to: random (25)<8 - so we get 29.17% chance of check being passed.

Now, if the army is overloaded by 10, which is a lot, it gets:

random (20+0+10/2+10)=random (35)<8 gets 20.59% chance.

So in this example putting a better leader in the army allows you to overload it by 10 for no ill effects. On the other hand, the gain is less than 8% chance. When the leader is in the not overloaded direct command, the chances rise


Leader rating<random(10), so for rating of 6, we have 60% chance.
For rating of 8, we have 80% chance.


For the unit performing 2 checks, as in the example, the chances of success for leaders of rating:
6 in immediate command & 6 upper: (1-0.4*0.79)= 68.4%
8 in immediate command & 6 upper: (1-0.2*0.79)= 84.2%
6 in immediate command and 8 in upper: (1-0.4*0.71)= 71.6%

This is why I say that upper level command does not matter much - it raises chances from 68.4% to 71.6%.

However, if you use the upper HQ in distance of 4 hexes, you get:

random (20+0+4/2)=random(22)<6 - 23.8 % chance
and for better leader - random(22)<8 33.3% chance.

If we do the same matrix, one can see that:

6 in immediate command & 6 upper: (1-0.4*0.79)= 68.4%
8 in immediate command & 6 upper: (1-0.2*0.79)= 84.2%
6 in immediate command and 8 in upper: (1-0.4*0.71)= 71.6%

success chance.

As such, it seems that the distance from HQ does not matter nearly as much as I thought. Still, the increase in chances by having good leader in the immediate upper HQ is not more than 4%, which is not much. As such, I think that my opinion that leaders in secondary HQ does not matter is pretty valid.

I still need to check whether Soviets does not get the distance penalty for armies (they have no lower level command). If so, it would make their leadership much worse again, when compared to Axis. But most likely I remembered the formula wrong. Also, I did such calculations before and I got the idea that upper HQ does not matter much.

Once again, thank you for providing the formulas!!!

[edit]

I made a thread regarding German and Soviet leadership here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2988267&mpage=1&key=�

Sorry for hijacking this one...

[edit] corrected calculations - error found by Gingerbread - Thanks!!!

< Message edited by Toidi -- 12/19/2011 12:03:00 PM >

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 172
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 4:02:40 AM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


Not to mention that real talent - as in being able to consistently get victories out of dicey odds - in the Red Army officer corps is limited to a few individuals, who if you want to get the most out of them, make you to spend a lot of AP reattaching them.

Actually a big AP pool is something which is almost mandatory for both sides in order to undertake an offensive with success. The thing is that either side spends those in a different way.


/edit Carlkay this refutes your points: the force multiplier effect of switching divisions obviates the inferior command ratings for combat. Soviets, as demonstrated in this post, can more cheaply re-assign combat divisions to the great commanders over replacing commanders. Thus, you can infinitely stream great divisions into great commands for maximal combat power and force amplification.

Okay, here is a downstream consequence of an AP cost of 1 to switch divisions as Soviet:

Let's argue that super-awesome Soviet commander with all 8s for his leadership values is in command of 1.Soviet Army

1.Soviet Army has 10 divisions (20CP) and each are identical in TOE, Morale, and Experience

Germany attacks 1.Soviet Army and damages 5 divisions, setting them down 15 in morale and 50% in TOE.

1.Soviet Army is now in dire straits with 5 divisions to defend its sector.

But behind it is 2.Soviet Army with 10 divisions in a reserve sector nearby to the east and 2.Soviet Army was not attacked. 2.Soviet Army's commander has 5 leadership values everywhere.

Well, I don't want to swap 1.Soviet Army with 2.Soviet Army, because 1.Soviet has the super leadership. So what I'm going to do is move 5 divisions forward from 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs. Meanwhile, I'm going to move the 5 divisions from 1.Soviet to Stavka for 5 APs, or maybe 2.Soviet Army for 5 APs (but the advantage of STAVKA is that next time you need to switch them, you will pay 0 APs).

This is cheaper than switching the commanders. In fact, it's cheaper for Soviet divisions to switch out of their HQ at any level than it is to switch an HQ from one command to another. This becomes a force multiplier for Soviet leadership. Only have 5 good commanders? No problem, you can move fresh divisions in and out of those commanders' units for 1/3rd the cost Germany would.

Here is one of the exploitations that can be achieved by this AP efficiency (it's one that I do as Soviet):
My 5 great commanders can simply swap divisions in and out of their command, with damaged divisions swapped seamlessly and cheaply so they can fall back into the reserve position with 2.Army or Stavka. I don't believe these kinds of reserve movements were commonplace in 1941, but rather this kind of tactic was not efficient for the Soviets until mid 1943.

Now you've moved 10 divisions around for 10 APs, or 20% of the turn's AP. If you moved the ones from 1.Soviet that were damaged to Stavka, that's where the cost ends. If you moved them into 2.Soviet, you might spend 5 more APs to move them again later. Odds are most Soviet players are going to put them in Stavka, because the disadvantage to being there is negligible, and the advantage of 0 AP transfer is huge.

Germany, meanwhile, has 1.Corps with 4 divisions attached to 1.Army.
Blizzard is coming, and Germany needs to move 2 divisions to OKH so they can winter in Germany, and it needs to move 1 of the 2 divisions to the 1.Army level so it can recover in the rear (or maybe be set to reserve to support the front line better).

Germany will pay, prior to leadership checks, 21 points for these transfers, or more than 40% of the turn's AP to do 1/3 the reorganization. Interestingly, Germany would likely only have a 15% better chance than the Soviet to reduce the cost of transfer by one-half, however, for the Soviets one-half of 1 is still 1, so that leadership difference is immaterial to their side. For Germany, as has been previously stated, your corps and your army are the only meaningful rolls and backups, because your Army Group is over command. If your army is over its CP (about 1/3rd chance), then your corps HQ is probably the only roll you can count on to succeed. Soviets, meanwhile, at both Front and Army HQ level,a re probably not over-command, so they will have the same number of tiers for commander help as Germany (again, with only a 15% superiority in German leadership values prior to over-command penalties).

So for 2x the cost that Soviets pay, Germany can move half the number of divisions that the Soviet will. It is particularly a-historic doctrinally to pay so much to go from your corps to its parent army.

This is acceptable to you folks? Since this appears to be the case, it's appearing more and more likely that I just need to leave you guys to your badly designed game; my efforts to improve it are not appreciated, let alone seen as valid.

None of my data argue the other side of super-Soviet efficiency, which is all the divisions coming back for free and assigned to Stavka - this is another huge cost savings for the Soviet enabling them even greater flexibility and proficiency in organizing their army.

The important of efficiently organized commands cannot be under-stated, and the Soviet Union is far superior in organizing that Army than Germany. In the first year of the war, this is completely unrealistic and a-historic.


Very insightful regarding in-game command and control and the relative advantages (albeit unintended) the Soviet side of the coin experiences. Unfortunately I think you’re preaching to the unconvertible.

I'm in complete agreement with your observations about the inadvertent advantage in command and control built into the Soviet side of the game. I also feel, based upon playing both sides in numerous PBEMS, that the Soviets command and control system built around the Army Level HQ is far more flexible than the German command system built around the Korps. The Soviet Army HQ system allows the Soviets to employ a much larger number of combat units without suffering the multiple HQ penalty. It's optimized for 12 divisions under the same HQ. Conversely the German Korps system is optimized for only 4-division before getting schwacked with the multi-HQ penalty. And for the Germans to reshuffle for critical attacks results in excessive AP costs. And to dump more than 4 divisions under the same Korps means incurring other combat power penalties.

What’s particularly odd -- and most probably also unintended -- but I think this advantage actually dwindle as the Soviets start building Corps. At least that’s been my observation. So as the war progresses and when the Soviets would -- historically speaking -- be gaining on the Germans in terms of Command and control, their in-game operational flexibility is actually dwindeling as a result of Soviet Army HQs having to deal with multiple Corps level combat units. Soviet Corps become very-very expensive in APs to flip-flop between Armies.


< Message edited by marty_01 -- 12/19/2011 4:09:03 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 173
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 12:11:24 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Toidi: keep in mind that the Soviets already have a serious advantage as whereas army HQ's were more often than not more like corps level commands in terms of units attached, there is no penalty for attaching 12 divisions to them, making them equal to an Axis army. That's a serious advantage, because it means you have to use fewer army HQ's and can concentrate your mediocre to good leaders in that limited number of army HQ's.

It will be changed at some point (that is: presumably there will either be penalties when more than X units are attached or the command capacity will be lowered), but only if some of the ahistorical Axis advantages are removed first according to Pavel, something I agree with.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 12/19/2011 12:13:26 PM >


_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 174
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 12:55:48 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
And when we do this, I'm going to fight long and hard to ratchet up the cap on STAVKA, which is quite useless after October of 1941.

The Soviets spends most of the war fighting with a 2 tier structure: army and front. STAVKA is MIA when it is over command cap by hundreds of points. Seen in this light, this alleged efficiency of army commands is largely an illusion and is making the best of a bad situation.

I'd like to be able to stick Vasilevsky in STAVKA and get something out of it, y'know? He never ever goes there. There's no point in it. I might as well have Crusty the Clown running the show.





< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 12/19/2011 1:05:01 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 175
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 3:10:39 PM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3065
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'd like to be able to stick Vasilevsky in STAVKA and get something out of it, y'know? He never ever goes there. There's no point in it. I might as well have Crusty the Clown running the show.


Well, we all already have Good Old Boris there, right?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 176
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 3:37:54 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6396
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
He's no good either past October. Nobody is. When you're hundreds of points over cap, no amount of administrative genius amounts to much.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 177
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 6:14:49 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1877
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
How about more admin points for the Germans?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 178
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 6:17:29 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
Pretty pointless, they only have any real need for AP's early on to remove the inefficiencies of the initial setup.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 179
RE: March Madness '42 - 12/19/2011 6:25:40 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1877
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
I have not played this game too much as yet but i need AP all the time - what about HQ build ups that uses loads, also when under pressuer you can switch many Divs between corps?

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: March Madness '42 Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
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

0.145