Discrepancy in AP points (Full Version)

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



Message


vinnie71 -> Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 1:40:24 PM)

I'm just trying to understand why the Axis especially have such a low number of AP points. In effect, this lowers the chances of a successful defence given that weak leaders can't be weeded out, or significant reinforcements brought from the Eastern Front. What's also strange is that when one wants to disband a unit, one gets taxed 1 AP - even a fortified zone.

In all honesty, such rules tend to crimp the already limited space to affect any meaningful changes to the axis defence.




Baelfiin -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 2:36:47 PM)

At least you don't have to spend AP's to change unit HQ's.




vinnie71 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 2:49:36 PM)

Actually if one looks at all the comings and goings of certain 'fire-brigade' units between fronts and general flexibility of the Wehrmacht, I think that some more APs are warranted. Its also a bit strange that disbandment actually cost APs rather then recuperates some.




Joel Billings -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 4:01:41 PM)

AP costs for disbanding can be seen as a political cost. No one wants to see their organization disbanded.




vinnie71 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 4:29:16 PM)

Well if some dugout major has a problem at disbanding his fortified zone, I don't think anyone would have cared.

But this is the point - if AP is essentially about politics, mobilizing static units or dismantling redundant fortresses should not be seen as such.




Numdydar -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 6:05:33 PM)

You kidding? Static units are not just garrisons. They are also main combat forces too. Releasing PZ divisions needed Hitler's approval. Can you imagine if someone just released these without an ok? Talk about a political cost.

So AP costs go way beyond what you might consider given the political structure in Germany. Even the simplest of things required more approvals than you might think or want [:)]




Jakerson -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 6:40:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Actually if one looks at all the comings and goings of certain 'fire-brigade' units between fronts and general flexibility of the Wehrmacht, I think that some more APs are warranted. Its also a bit strange that disbandment actually cost APs rather then recuperates some.


Axis having to pay AP cost for chancing unit HQís would be too punishing for axis as they need to constantly reorganize troops between different partisan zones and possible surprise landings and para drops.




vinnie71 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 7:02:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

You kidding? Static units are not just garrisons. They are also main combat forces too. Releasing PZ divisions needed Hitler's approval. Can you imagine if someone just released these without an ok? Talk about a political cost.

So AP costs go way beyond what you might consider given the political structure in Germany. Even the simplest of things required more approvals than you might think or want [:)]


I'm not referring to static units but fortified zones. And btw Hitler's reach was not everywhere and generals did exercise initiative when strong willed enough. Look at the 21st Panzer's counterattack in Normandy.

What I'm saying is that although I agree with the game setup of not using APs for sundry command changes etc as in WitE, they are quite scarce from an Axis point of view.




Baelfiin -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 7:08:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

You kidding? Static units are not just garrisons. They are also main combat forces too. Releasing PZ divisions needed Hitler's approval. Can you imagine if someone just released these without an ok? Talk about a political cost.

So AP costs go way beyond what you might consider given the political structure in Germany. Even the simplest of things required more approvals than you might think or want [:)]


I'm not referring to static units but fortified zones. And btw Hitler's reach was not everywhere and generals did exercise initiative when strong willed enough. Look at the 21st Panzer's counterattack in Normandy.

What I'm saying is that although I agree with the game setup of not using APs for sundry command changes etc as in WitE, they are quite scarce from an Axis point of view.


Which counterattack? 6-7 june?




vinnie71 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 7:19:01 PM)

Yes. And not to point out the fact that the Italian campaign was essentially fought without much interference from Berlin. Tight control waxed and waned over time and depending on the interest of great leader.[;)]




Baelfiin -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 7:37:00 PM)

Yeah Marcks ordered 21panzer to attack on 6 june according to von Luck in Panzer Commander p.178 "whether authorized to do so or not"
Almost every account relates mass confusion about who was authorized to do what. Most of the german commanders seemed to be afraid to take initiative at the time though.




Steelers708 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/30/2014 9:16:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Releasing PZ divisions needed Hitler's approval.


That is not actually true, von Runstedt and Geyr von Schweppenburg(supported by Guderian) both adamantly opposed Rommels plans for the panzer divisions forward use, but as von Runstedt refused to make the decision as CinC West it was referred to Hitler at OKW where, unfortunately for Rommel, he had few friends. Hitler instead of choosing either side came to a compromise which meant neither plan could be executed in the event.

The 2d, 21st and 116th Panzer divisions were assigned to Army Group B; however, their areas of operation continued to be dictated by Hitlerís headquarters. Panzer Group West was allowed to keep only four of its original ten divisions: 1st SS, 12th SS, 17th SS Panzer grenadier and Panzer Lehr. The 2d SS, 9th and 11th Panzer divisions were given to Army Group G in southern France. Most of these Panzer divisions were reorganizing and only a few were operationally capable by German standards on 6 June.

Therefore it is unfair to pin all the blame on Hitler, although that has always been the post war version, namely that it was ALL down to Hitler and nobody else was involved.




vinnie71 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/31/2014 6:14:13 AM)

@ Steeler708 - exactly. The artificial constraints were not political in nature but due to military dissention on the best way forward, so attributing political interference to every faux pas was essentially post war finger pointing. Schweppenburg did not appreciate the effects of Allied air forces, unlike Rommel who had first hand experience in the desert. The former wanted a sledge hammer solution while the latter wanted to cripple an invasion on the beaches.

Which is why I find the lack of APs most strange in this circumstance, because it puts a real crimp on Axis operations while the Allies can and actually do manipulate the system to the full (we've heard of landings of numerous divisions on D-Day etc by bringing into play Med assets and so on). The Axis are tied to a certain extent to a set of options. But here I don't want to open the usual discussion on this matter as happened in WitE.

One other issue which comes to mind is the fact that Panzer Group West is missing. It existed well before D-Day (I believe since January '44 under von Schweppenburg)and was renamed 5 Panzer Army later. It was the central armoured reserve formation of OB West and I think it should be included - 5 Panzer Army comes much later in the game.




HMSWarspite -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/31/2014 10:03:00 AM)

I think you should not take 'political' too seriously. APs (in my book) reflect the overall hassle/inertia/effort of doing things. Just because a decision had to be relayed to Hitler would not necessarily make it slow/difficult... if you had a new wonder weapon, he would listen and decide instantly. But the 'system' for more usual things is slow and cumbersome. The fact that the Army commanders could make a decision, but didn't because they were nervous of it means that more APs would be used (in an ideal model) than a straight 'must go to Hitler but he will nod it through at the morning planning conference' type decision.

The German admin system as set up by the Nazis was astonishingly cumbersome and Byzantine... Hitler deliberately left some things vague and allowed his minions to fight over his favour. This means that they were incredibly protective of their own, tended to duplicate rather than work as a team, etc etc. The issues of the Allies working together have been documented, but on the whole had rather little effect on the war. The biggest (in WitW timeframe) was probably the debate on how to proceed in Sept 1944 (broad/narrow front). Ike fudged the choice due to the intrigue... you could model this by making depots very expensive for the Allies, but I do not think this is a good answer. You have to let the player make those mistakes on their own sometimes.

Whilst I would like to see how constraining the German AP figure is (not got in to playing Axis yet), I would be very anti any attempt to make the Germans fully flexible. They just weren't! Even the example of the single fortified zone earlier: for a start, the Corporal might ave a view (he was routinely down to divisional level by the late war, and his 'not one step back' edicts are famous. Then, the organisation that creates fortifications does not necessarily report to the local commander, or even the Army commander. Kesselring did as well as he did by ignoring Hitler, and riding rough shod. He got away with it by being succesful in a theatre that Hitler wasn't really watching. If Rommel had tried to remove some Atlantic Wall fortifications (as opposed to being horrified at how poor they were and increasing them) he would have had a huge fight on his hands....

I am a fan of not slavishly recreating history, but you have to watch balance... if the Germans were more flexible the Allies would have reacted and done different things. My favourite example of where people get it wrong is the Me262. 'If only the LW had got it in to service earlier it would have won the war'. Like heck. If it had been available in numbers sufficient to affect the 8th AF, the Allies would have countered... More emphesis on the Meteor, or more probably, more emphesis on finding their bases and camping LORCAP on them throughout daylight, more emphesis on fuel supplies, etc etc. The 262 might have paused the bombing for a bit, but would have been defeated just like the V1 (and to a lesser extent the V2, but had the ground advance not sorted that, the V2 would have been countered too). The Allies have such mind blowingly huge resources, they would have countered most things given a little time




HMSWarspite -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/31/2014 10:46:28 AM)

In fact, further to this, I think the Allies should have slightly more constraints on them. I think there should be a AP cost (that is significant) to change a unit from a Med command to a UK based one. Other than certain pre-programmed ones this would prevent an unhistoric concntration of forces that would certainly beat the AI, and probably stretch the entire game engine... The 14 div Brittany invasion for example might have been possible but at what effect elsewhere (outside the game factors?)




vinnie71 -> RE: Discrepancy in AP points (12/31/2014 12:51:39 PM)

I've only played the allies sporadically, and I've no issue there. As you said, their resources are suitably huge and do have the flexibility based on the fact that they controlled the skies and the seas. As to the APs awarded to the Allies, I don't see them as putting any additional constraints.

on the other hand the Germans did have an element of flexibility which was mostly negated from '43 onwards, by the looming presence of the Red Army more than anything else. Their major effort had to be in the east. Yet in moments of desperation or lulls in the Red onslaught, they did transfer units between fronts.

However, I'm not in favour of a totally flexible German army either. Fortifications cost a lot in APs (mostly 4 AP) and having to dismantle them as well. I'm not talking about the Atlantic Wall or prewar constructions, but rather the Fortified Zones a player decides to build, which in most cases are equivalent to beefed up field fortifications. It is the price for dismantling these Fortified Zones that I find rather strange.

Other than that I don't see much - an Axis player has to make choices like mobilize static divisions or build forts or change some general? I think that's appropriate




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125