Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Army Organisation

 
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 >> Army Organisation Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 9:28:56 AM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
I am playing around with attaching CUs to other HQs on turn 1. Spending 16 AP on top of what I would do anyway (Inf. out of Panzerkorps, Mot. out of InfKorps, no overloaded Korps) I would have no Army overloaded even after integrating the reinforcements of the first few turns.

Given all other things are equal does that seem worth it? Any Input would be welcome.
Post #: 1
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 9:47:30 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11096
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
For me the priorities are:
1) no overloaded corps
2) replacing bad corps leaders
2) all combat units attached to corps, not armies or army groups or OKH (mostly can be done for free, unless you move them sideways in the OOB tree)

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 2
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 9:48:00 AM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux

I am playing around with attaching CUs to other HQs on turn 1. Spending 16 AP on top of what I would do anyway (Inf. out of Panzerkorps, Mot. out of InfKorps, no overloaded Korps) I would have no Army overloaded even after integrating the reinforcements of the first few turns.

Given all other things are equal does that seem worth it? Any Input would be welcome.


Optimal thing to do is create a plan how your OOB should look like, and work toward that goal. You can take into account all of the future reinforcements & withdrawal since they have a fixed schedule. Plans can and will change, but having it all laid out in front of you (excel or whatever) makes changing and sticking to it easier. I think there even was a thread with an excel that looked really handy for this kind of OOB planning?

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 3
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 11:13:54 AM   
Searry

 

Posts: 500
Joined: 1/24/2014
Status: online
AP is precious in the beginning for HQBU in turn 3. I would say just replace the commander of I Corps with Model and move some pioneers there.

(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 4
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 12:00:42 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

For me the priorities are:
1) no overloaded corps
2) replacing bad corps leaders
2) all combat units attached to corps, not armies or army groups or OKH (mostly can be done for free, unless you move them sideways in the OOB tree)


Having no overloaded Corps and all CUs under corps command is my priority as well. I also assign all inf CUs out of panzercorps, because they will lag behind very soon.

This led to a somewhat cascading effect. You can assign two divisions from the overloaded coprs in green army in AGC to another corps in AGC for 1 AP each or to AGN for 2 AP each. Two divisions from the panzergroup in AGC in a color only women have a name for have to be reassigned within AGC (4 AP) or to AGN (6 AP). The reasignemts to AGN wont slow down relevant operations and are comparably cheap (4 AP). On the other hand its a job only half done once reinforcements arrive so the german armies of AGS have to be cleared of hungarian and slovak units. That has a value in itself because low morale divisions may lag behind the others. All in all clearing up the armies cost additional 12 APs.

As for leader changes what I am asking myself is wether no overloaded armies are worth lets say one leader change leadership roll wise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

Optimal thing to do is create a plan how your OOB should look like, and work toward that goal. You can take into account all of the future reinforcements & withdrawal since they have a fixed schedule. Plans can and will change, but having it all laid out in front of you (excel or whatever) makes changing and sticking to it easier. I think there even was a thread with an excel that looked really handy for this kind of OOB planning?


I made a very rude excel down to corps level to plan reassignements. An excel with the whole OOB would be great of course. Come to think of it the possibility to export the oob to excel from the game would be a great feature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Searry

AP is precious in the beginning for HQBU in turn 3. I would say just replace the commander of I Corps with Model and move some pioneers there.


Even with my plannend changes two HQBUs in turn 3 should be no problem. The question is if no overloaded army is worth lets say half a HQBU. And I have no idea, lacking any experience in long term goals.

(in reply to Searry)
Post #: 5
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 12:11:09 PM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Come to think of it the possibility to export the oob to excel from the game would be a great feature.


There's one excel like this somewhere on the forums, I think someone made it just recently?

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 6
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 12:30:45 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77


quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Come to think of it the possibility to export the oob to excel from the game would be a great feature.


There's one excel like this somewhere on the forums, I think someone made it just recently?


Yes and KenchiSulla has done one recently too.

The export function from the game itself gives every unit in one column and its parent HQ in another - you can use this to generate an OOB. A pivot table in a spreadsheet program can actually do it automatically each turn if you refresh it with each turns export.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
As for leader changes what I am asking myself is wether no overloaded armies are worth lets say one leader change leadership roll wise.


Although there can be exceptions, almost always you get more bangs for your buck getting rid of command penalties first before making leader changes. If you are reassigning units to HQs with better leaders you may be doing this anyway.


< Message edited by Telemecus -- 1/19/2018 1:23:47 PM >

(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 7
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 12:41:59 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Even with my plannend changes two HQBUs in turn 3 should be no problem. The question is if no overloaded army is worth lets say half a HQBU. And I have no idea, lacking any experience in long term goals.


If both an initiative and admin ratings check are failed then a unit is likely to have only two-thirds of the movement points it would have had. For a panzer unit after a HQBU this could means only 32 Mps instead of 50 say. The cost of changing the two worst panzer corps leaders the axis start off with needs to be only paid once - but will means most HQBUs after that will give their units up to 18 MPs more at the start of each turn. So on that alone probably worth it.

An army commander, if a second level commander, has a range penalty and only conducts ratings checks if the corps commanders fail theirs. If you have good corps commanders your army commander will be used little and so it is probably not useful to get a better one. If you keep the army command more than 3 hexes away from combat units the range penalty will probably also not make it worthwhile. And there can be good logistical reasons not to keep your army commands right behind your units. If on the other hand you put a good army commander above at least two bad corps commanders and keep the army HQ nearby, that is about as good as getting a good corps commander.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 8
RE: Army Organisation - 1/19/2018 8:52:20 PM   
ledo

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 11/6/2017
Status: offline
I made an OOB tracker, recently, but the manual aspects after the first few turns can be annoying. If you're looking for an initial reorganization it should work fine as it has the entire opening German OOB mapped out. The main thing it does for me is help me keep track of which corps/armies are in the best shape and how much support they have (or are likely to get from the current setup), it also helps you track leaders. You can find it in Ewald's stickied post in the War Room, along with some other really useful management tools and advice. Telemecus' tracking of Soviet Aircraft pools I think is really useful (and I use it religiously myself) to give you context for Soviet losses.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 9
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 9:23:31 AM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Thanks a lot for all the input. Its a really helpfull community here.

As I understand it cleaning up the armies might improve a lot of leader rolls for a lot of units. But once the CUs are more than three hexes away from army HQ (almost always) or have a good corps commander the effect is doubtfull. So good leaders for forward corps are a much higher priority especially regarding movement (admin/ ini) rolls.

Ledo, your spreadsheat is great espacially for initial reorganization. I guess I am to lazy to update it manually. Thanks for sharing. Someone mentionend an ingame data export function. I guess that only works for the editor and not for savegames?

I also have a question regarding logistics and HQs. As I understand it the downside for moving upper level HQs to the front and beyond the railheads is the truck cost of non strategic moving. Are there other downsides and how is truck usage calculated? My guess is that the vehicles in the HQ + the vehicles in all attached CUs + 1 vehicle for each depot from the pool get used.

(in reply to ledo)
Post #: 10
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 9:45:18 AM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Is it correct that the rumanian cavalry corps does not provide the "panzer bonus" for admin rolls?

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 11
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 1:15:03 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
So good leaders for forward corps are a much higher priority especially regarding movement (admin/ ini) rolls.

I would also say the infantry (or motorised for panzer, air for fliegerkorps) scores as being priorities - they are the scores that get you wins on the battlefield.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Someone mentionend an ingame data export function. I guess that only works for the editor and not for savegames?

No the commander export function is for savegames and has the latest data for that point in the game. The csv export function is from the editor and is different. It contains only the scenario data for the start of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
I also have a question regarding logistics and HQs. As I understand it the downside for moving upper level HQs to the front and beyond the railheads is the truck cost of non strategic moving. Are there other downsides and how is truck usage calculated? My guess is that the vehicles in the HQ + the vehicles in all attached CUs + 1 vehicle for each depot from the pool get used.


As well as the lorry cost for moving the unit, there is also the lorry cost for carrying supplies to and from the railhead to the unit. Key things to look at are the transport cost - which you will see in the unit card details, and the fuel/ammo/supplies levels and distance (Mps and hexes) from the railhead. The bigger the first one the more lorries are used in transport. The bigger the latter ones the more lorries will be used in supplying the unit in the logistics phase. Units carrying a lot of supplies can take a lot of lorries - beware of units with 1000s of tonnes of fuel, they can cost the equivalent of armies to move. Also units with large numbers of support units can multiply their transport costs.


< Message edited by Telemecus -- 1/20/2018 1:23:34 PM >

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 12
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 1:21:54 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Is it correct that the rumanian cavalry corps does not provide the "panzer bonus" for admin rolls?


No only HQs that have "panzer" in the title and for all motorised units.

So all panzer corps and armies do, but not rumanian cavalry corps or Hungarian mobile corps. And they do it for any motorised units in their command - including 1st cavalry, Italian cavalry from later in 1942, motorised infantry, Rumanian, Hungarian and Slovakian armoured and motorised units, but not for Rumanian,Hungarian or itlaian cavalry units that are not motorised at the start of 1941.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 13
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 5:51:49 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Thanks a lot for helping me along. I hope I dont overstay the welcome when asking to clarify some things for a newbie.

As I understand it transport cost is the cost of strat movement. Lorry usage to move a unit should be less because many components of a unit have integral mobility (wheels, tracks, 2 or 4 legs). So the lorry cost to move the stuff detailed in the TOE should be seen in the need part of "Vehicle/Need" of the unit detail window. In addition attached SUs will need lorrys as seen in their unit detail window. Also supply/ammo and fuel within a unit needs one additional lorry per ton/depot. Therefore moving OKH with all SUs of the Wehrmacht or a single airbase can cost a lot of lorrys compared to an infantry division.

Do support units in the TOE of higher HQs need lorries in the logistics phase or do the get a free ride to the front?

And do all these Generalmajore get promoted sooner or later or is it my job to do this?

Thanks for the tip with the commander export function. My problem now is to find the file.

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 14
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 6:39:19 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Thanks a lot for helping me along. I hope I dont overstay the welcome when asking to clarify some things for a newbie.

We have all been there - and there is nothing wrong with just asking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
As I understand it transport cost is the cost of strat movement.


Saying strategic movement can be confusing. That usually refers to using ships or trains to move units in this game. Here we have actually been talking about tactical movement which is by vehicle, foot or horse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Lorry usage to move a unit should be less because many components of a unit have integral mobility (wheels, tracks, 2 or 4 legs).

Sort of yes and no. American infantry divisions for example did use lorries to move riflemen long distances. And at least later on they worked out you needed tank transporters if you were moving a tank a long way - not use its own tracks. So units with their own mobility in a combat area does not necessarily mean they can use the same for movement across the map. Or vice versa cavalry did not fight on horseback here (usually) but were rather infantry who used horses for transport instead of feet when not in combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
So the lorry cost to move the stuff detailed in the TOE should be seen in the need part of "Vehicle/Need" of the unit detail window.


Sort of. These are the vehicles which are organic to the unit itself. They might be about moving the unit - but also shuttling commanders around (staff cars), moving people to rear hospitals and back again and the many other uses a unit has for vehicles even when the unit is not necessarily moving across the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Also supply/ammo and fuel within a unit needs one additional lorry per ton/depot.

The notional capacity of a lorry I think is one ton at any point in time. That is not to say the number of tons of supplies is the same as the number of lorries used. Moving 100 tons 10 kilometres in a week needs fewer lorries than 100 tons 100 kilometres. Without knowing distances you cannot know the lorries needed to move supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Therefore moving OKH with all SUs of the Wehrmacht or a single airbase can cost a lot of lorrys compared to an infantry division.

Yes - I have cases where OKH has over 80,000 transport cost compared to some infantry divisions under 2,000

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Do support units in the TOE of higher HQs need lorries in the logistics phase or do the get a free ride to the front?

Their needs are just like on map units and are measured from the same location as the unit they are assigned to. However during an action phase if you reassign a support unit to another unit this happens without any lorry use - a magical teleportation if you like. If they are in an HQ and committed to a battle hexes away, again this is without lorry use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
And do all these Generalmajore get promoted sooner or later or is it my job to do this?

Most do eventually get promoted

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Thanks for the tip with the commander export function. My problem now is to find the file.

It will be in the same folder as your gave save files. If you do not know where that is save a game file to your computer with an unusual name and search for it in windows search to find the folder. if opening it with a spreadsheet program select tab separated values.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 1/20/2018 6:41:31 PM >

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 15
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 6:58:46 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Thanks again, one last thing to get me going.

I was aware of of SUs "beaming" to a new assignment and back at no lorry cost. I was wondering about the other kind of support units, the ones organic to higher HQs that are helping subordinate CUs in HQ range. I guess there is the same magic at work.

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 16
RE: Army Organisation - 1/20/2018 7:04:02 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
I was aware of of SUs "beaming" to a new assignment and back at no lorry cost. I was wondering about the other kind of support units, the ones organic to higher HQs that are helping subordinate CUs in HQ range. I guess there is the same magic at work.

By this do you mean support squads - different from support units? If so HQs can help other units with support squads and they do help without lorries in the admin work. This may be because they do the admin work at the end of a field telephone line rather than moving physically perhaps?


< Message edited by Telemecus -- 1/20/2018 7:05:12 PM >

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 17
RE: Army Organisation - 1/21/2018 3:08:19 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Yes, support squads is what I meant. Not so easy to get everything right in this game.

Also I never seem to run out of questions.

Do air HQs work just as others leadership wise? So no range penalty for corps but range peanalties for air armies. Or is the. corps already a higher Hq best kept within 3 hexes?

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 18
RE: Army Organisation - 1/21/2018 3:14:26 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Also I never seem to run out of questions.

Do air HQs work just as others leadership wise? So no range penalty for corps but range peanalties for air armies. Or is the. corps already a higher Hq best kept within 3 hexes?



Let us hope we do not run out of answers!

Yes - no range penalty on first level HQs. And I would say try to keep the next level of Air HQ within one hex of the airbases - should be easier than for the ground HQs. At one hex or less away the higher HQ has no range penalty at all. Also note the points made about air ratings checks in the USSR Fronts thread.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 19
RE: Army Organisation - 1/21/2018 6:02:26 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Let us hope we do not run out of answers!



I surely do, which brings me to yet another question.

Do HQs work while in train movement mode and are they more vulnerable? Would make things easier if these air HQs could make their job from the rail car. What is with attached AA SUs when packed up?

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 20
RE: Army Organisation - 1/21/2018 6:12:47 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Do HQs work while in train movement mode and are they more vulnerable? Would make things easier if these air HQs could make their job from the rail car. What is with attached AA SUs when packed up?


That is a good question - and in fact one I asked before. So if you find out the answer let us know!

Being loaded on a train does reduce the combat effectiveness of a ground unit - perhaps this also applies to AA? But apart from this it does seem like everything else works in the same way. You can even fly aeroplanes to and from airbases on trains! However I have never managed to get a confirmation that there are no penalties etc.

At least historically commanders and their staff did work from specially adapted trains. So at least on the leadership side it is not totally unrealistic.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 21
RE: Army Organisation - 1/21/2018 6:59:44 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
I put I corps HQ in a train and changed the leader to Model. CV of attached CUs went up. When attacking arty assigned to corps HQ participated in battle and Model was shown as commander in the battle report. Looks like he is doing a fine job from his rail car. No idea how to easily find out whether the arty has effectivness reduced.

One of the more silly things concerning airbases is that an airsupply mission to an airbase will drop the supplies around the base and the base then moves around and collect what it finds. IRL there would be a more efficient method to get cargo from a plane to an airfield. A part of the supply gets transfered to bombs thanks to being dropped from a plane. Luckily it arrives crated obviously.


(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 22
RE: Army Organisation - 1/22/2018 6:05:06 AM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline
I don't think "Transport Cost" has anything to do with moving supplies & tactical movement of units? It might have a correlation, since heavier units usually consume more ammo, fuel and supplies, but there are different formulas for truck usage of units.


quote:

14.2. Strategic movement

Each unit has a strategic transport cost listed in the unit detail window. For that unit to use strategic movement there must be sufficient rail capacity, transport shipping, or amphibious shipping points available to conduct the applicable type of movement. The transportation cost of a unit will be deducted from the pool of available points every turn it uses strategic movement, even if it just moves one hex.


quote:

20.1.4. Motor Pool

The motor pool represents the generic vehicles dedicated to the non-rail network portion of the supply grid. During the Unit Supply Requirements sub-segment of the Logistics phase, the computer determines the required number of vehicles that should be in the motor pool to meet supply requirements. This vehicle requirement for the supply system is based on supply and fuel usage, distance from the rail heads and the current number of organic vehicles in combat units, which increases the required number of vehicles in the motor pool by one for every two vehicles in a unit.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 23
RE: Army Organisation - 1/22/2018 11:17:36 AM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
I searched the manual about vehicle usage and that is what I found:

CU movement: Uses and attrits only organic vehicles. Lack of organic vehicles will reduce MPs.

HQ movement: Like CU. To move depots in addition one vehicle is borrowed from the pool per depot when using up 100% MP.

Supply: The pool is used to move supply from railhead to unit and for nothing else. Pool attrition is calculated according to supply movement usage. When CUs are supplied through HQs the pool is only used from railhead to HQ. It is unclear (to me) how supply is distributed from HQ to CUs but there seems to be no cost.

quote:


This vehicle requirement for the supply system is based on supply and fuel usage, distance from the rail heads and the current number of organic vehicles in combat units, which increases the required number of vehicles in the motor pool by one for every two vehicles in a unit.


Perhaps the distribution of supplies to CUs is abstracted by the increase of required vehicles in the pool according to organic vehicles?

(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 24
RE: Army Organisation - 1/22/2018 2:09:51 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
Yes Nix77 is right strictly transport cost is only a variable in the strategic movement calculations.
But it does seem to be a very good proxy for tactical movement costs and supply. But you need to know the distance/time factor as well as postfux has found from the manual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
It is unclear (to me) how supply is distributed from HQ to CUs but there seems to be no cost.

Perhaps the distribution of supplies to CUs is abstracted by the increase of required vehicles in the pool according to organic vehicles?


It is in effect free. This is no doubt a simplification, and the increased requirement for organic vehicles probably does take it into account. But typically the last leg of distribution of supplies came on horse back, on a mans back, or even for very small batches in pockets. The last leg of ammunition delivery usually came to combat troops themselves. In WitE2 they specifically state any distribution within three hexes requires no vehicles as it is assumed to be done by pack animal.

This is WAD as it is intended to make the use of HQ units important in the game. HQs placed optimally between railheads and their assigned combat units can make big savings in supply costs.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 1/22/2018 2:10:26 PM >

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 25
RE: Army Organisation - 1/22/2018 6:24:00 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Made some test on turn 1.

Moving 18th army HQ with 890 depots to max range lets the pool drop to 175k. Moving lots of airbases with 1.000s tons of stuff (fuel, supply, ammo) does nothing to the pool. This is consistent with the fact airbases dont have depots but integral supply shown as a percentage and being detailed in the right side of the unit detail window. Depots on the other hand show up in the TOE (of HQs other than airbases).

Transfering airgroups from one airgroup to another does not change needed vehicles. Airbases with the same TOE show different numbers of needed vehicles with bases with more stuff having a higher need.

I think it is safe to assume that airbases use only organic vehicles when moving. 17th LW airbase with more than 5.500 tons of stuff has only a need for 822 vehicles. V Fliegercorps has a need for 744 vehicles (they have 455 support squads). Moving it to max range lets the pool drop to 175k, so additional trucks get borrowed from the pool to move the depots.

As a result I dont think it is necessarily efficent to move airbases by train. They move stuff around pretty cheap in trucks.

Concerning a somewhat related topic I dont think air corps are first level HQs with no range penalty (as assumed by me) after reading the manual. Airbases should function as first level HQs.

Correct?

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 26
RE: Army Organisation - 1/22/2018 6:44:21 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2199
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
Many thanks for doing these tests and sharing them. This is the sort of thing that helps us all to advance our understanding

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
Transfering airgroups from one airgroup to another does not change needed vehicles. Airbases with the same TOE show different numbers of needed vehicles with bases with more stuff having a higher need.


Remember the vehicles needed only gets updated at the start of every turn. So although transferring airgroups during the turn does not change vehicles needed, it will by the time you press end turn for the logistics phase - as you will see with the numbers when they come back the next turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux
As a result I dont think it is necessarily efficient to move airbases by train. They move stuff around pretty cheap in trucks.


The only proviso I would add to that is that no matter how efficient the lorries usage, doing it by rail for longer distance moves will always be better (zero lorries). If you have spare rail cap (more of a problem for Soviets than Axis) and if you have nothing better to use the rail cap for it is still best by rail. The only exception might be for very short distances where the MP cost of loading and unloading does not make it worthwhile.

The general experience is that if you have bases with big aircraft (bombers/transports) a long way from railheads you are going to have a very big hit to overall vehicle pool numbers. This comes not just from moving the depots, but driving up the replacements to them each turn.

quote:


Concerning a somewhat related topic I dont think air corps are first level HQs with no range penalty (as assumed by me) after reading the manual. Airbases should function as first level HQs.


It is a good question and is caused by the confusion as airbases are sometimes treated (and called) HQs and sometimes act like divisional size units. This can be tested by looking at the ratings scores in the supply details of the unit card. They do change when you move around higher HQs (e.g. Luftflotte) but I believe not for the Fliegerkorps, which indicates they are in fact the first level HQ. The airbases themselves do not have "leaders" even though they are called HQs for supply purposes. So when it comes to leadership I think the Fliegerkorps are still first level HQs. But it is something you can test to see and confirm one way or the other for us?

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 1/22/2018 6:49:13 PM >

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 27
RE: Army Organisation - 1/22/2018 7:32:17 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
Many rumanian airbase have the same TOE, the same amount of stuff, the same transport cost and the same vehicle need. They do have differnt airframes and a different number of them. So it seems only the support stuff is moved by truck/ train and the planes fly.

I am playing around with base hopping my airgroups to the front, that uses a lot of railcap on turn 1. A marginal but interesting detail I discovered is that unloading does not increase the miles flown even though it uses up movement points. I guess the same is true for loading. So there is nothing from with using trains to move short distances with airbases.

You are absolutely right about air corps. They provide the same bonus no matter the distance. Moving air armies changes the ratings.

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 28
RE: Army Organisation - 1/23/2018 12:27:17 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 2968
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux




I want to see an AAR with "SparklyTits" and "PostFux" :). I bet that could be some very interesting reading.

_____________________________


(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 29
RE: Army Organisation - 1/23/2018 12:28:37 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 2968
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux




I want to see an AAR with "SparklyTits" and "PostFux" :). I bet that could be some very interesting reading.


I would be in it for the pictures at a minimum ;-P

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Army Organisation Page: [1] 2   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

0.176