Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

PzGren OB

 
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 >> PzGren OB Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
PzGren OB - 12/31/2015 6:29:49 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
For some years I have felt the assignment of the newest medium tanks to 1942 mot. and PzG divisions jar with my conception, build over some decades, of the dvisions' OBs. I have always understood these divisions to have been equipped with second choice medium tanks or StuGs. Looking into this again and scanning a few sites, I find my conception more or less confirmed.

It appears that the tank battalion was not universal, pointing to multiple ToE types for 1942-3 and where present was generally composed of Pz III, sometimes Pz IV (type unclear) or StuGs. I have yet to see StuGs appear in what should be the PzG tank battalion (a detailed sub-divisional OoB which players could equip from historical options is highly desirable in my view). Instead, in game, as of April 43, I find 2 of 3 panther equipped units are PzGren divisions. Granted, panthers will shortly not be available to any division at this date, but I can find nothing to justify the current 1942-3 allocation of medium tanks to mot./Pzgren divisions, as the current game allows. Any thoughts/information?



_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson
Post #: 1
RE: PzGren OB - 12/31/2015 7:12:02 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6503
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: online
Likely caused by the rather low tank count in these OBs and the upgrade path from IIIm to Panther D. Removing that upgrade path may cure this problem but may also create multiple others. I'll run some tests with that path removed.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 2
RE: PzGren OB - 1/1/2016 12:24:18 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Likely caused by the rather low tank count in these OBs and the upgrade path from IIIm to Panther D. Removing that upgrade path may cure this problem but may also create multiple others. I'll run some tests with that path removed.

But I've never seen Pz III in a Pzgren/mot. div, either. They always get the latest meds, and never StuG's. All PzG divs in 42-3 have a tank battalion, too, when this should not be universal.

Surely something for WitE 2, but we rally could use battalion level breakdown of divisional ToE as per my last post.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 3
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 8:26:16 AM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
I've noticed that too in my games as the Axis that went into 43-44, particularly that Panthers commonly seemed to end up in my PzGren Divs. This was historically not the case. By the time Panthers were coming available, PzGren Divs were re-organizing largely along the lines of a Stug or JgPz Bn. Panthers were meant to be a specialized tank vs tank weapon, not a role PzGren Divs were generally meant to be employed in. It would take some digging, but off the top of my head I can't think of any (certainly not multiple) instances of Panthers used in PzGren Divs, other than perhaps SS or GrossDeutschland Divs before they were officially redesignated as Panzer Divs.

It also seems to me that by late 42, (historically) most Panzer Bns in Mot Divs were rather whittled down, and into 43 losses were essentially made up with Stugs rather than more PzIII/IVs. Perhaps another option would be to create an interim TOE between the 42 Motorized and 43 PzGren Div that reflects a lower priority for tanks and makes for a better shift to Stugs?

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 4
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 6:59:09 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

I've noticed that too in my games as the Axis that went into 43-44, particularly that Panthers commonly seemed to end up in my PzGren Divs. This was historically not the case. By the time Panthers were coming available, PzGren Divs were re-organizing largely along the lines of a Stug or JgPz Bn. Panthers were meant to be a specialized tank vs tank weapon, not a role PzGren Divs were generally meant to be employed in. It would take some digging, but off the top of my head I can't think of any (certainly not multiple) instances of Panthers used in PzGren Divs, other than perhaps SS or GrossDeutschland Divs before they were officially redesignated as Panzer Divs.

It also seems to me that by late 42, (historically) most Panzer Bns in Mot Divs were rather whittled down, and into 43 losses were essentially made up with Stugs rather than more PzIII/IVs. Perhaps another option would be to create an interim TOE between the 42 Motorized and 43 PzGren Div that reflects a lower priority for tanks and makes for a better shift to Stugs?

I think I recall reading that the Brandenberg PzG had panthers at one point. The problem at this point in the game's development is that the generalisations of ToOE do not account for the many variations. Neither, in spite of great dedication from the devs, is the equipment swap routine able to replicate history.

You'll find that as well as ahistorical tank allocations, the first units to receive new equipment such as MG 42, PaK 38/PaK 40 are those that would have received it last historically- rear echelon occupation and fort units.

I don't wish to add complexity and micromanagement to the game for those who don't want it, but I do feel that the non-unit specified ToOE system has much to answer for here. Really, you will see in each division not a ToOE but a ToE. Instead of a division diplayed in its numerous regimental/battalion/company constituents, a division is, and is broken down to "regiments" from, a tally of all its individual and squad elements. This makes it very difficult to replicate historical use of equipment and impossible to break down divisions for the specific tasks a player might require.

For those happy to let the AI do it for them, the change I'm proposing should not detract from the game. For micromanagers and those wishing for more historical use of equipment, it will add much. Instead of the tally we see of squads and individual vehicles/guns when looking at a division or brigade, would it not be better to display the sub-unit organisation of the unit in question as well? If you click on a regiment within a division, perhaps you might see listed its constituent battalions as well as the elements that they comprise, within these, its companies etc. It would surely not be such a leap as the tally of squads/equipment we have presently, is surely derived from knowledge of sub-unit composition.

With such a display one could then allocate equipment from a list of historical options, much as you can currently change an air group's equipment, though perhaps such swap outs might be treated as "requests" rather than be automatically accomplished.

It would be entirely possible, then, to replicate historical equipment swap outs such as, for example, the German divisional anti-tank battalion which tended to receive new PaK 38s, later PaK 40s, before regimental AT units, which retained the PaK 35/36 and PaK 38 respectively. Security divisions would not get the best equipment any more, ever, unless you happened to be swimming in the stuff.

The current PzG tank battalion problem arises, I suspect, from either an exhaustion of ToOE types in the game or the fact that StuGs and Meds are two different vehicle categories. It's difficult to allow for both to occupy the same slot without creating untoward consequences in other ToOEs. My proposal would give those PzG divs blessed with a tank battalion, a battalion which they could fill with StuGs, Pz III, or whatever, as their equipment pools and historical usage allowed. I currently have hundreds of StuGs sitting in pools with nowhere to go while meds are assigned as soon as they run off the production lines, often to units they should not belong to.

Using the same sub-unit depiction those not wanting a default regimental breakdown, might break a division down into two or more battle groups tailor made for the tasks they are intended for. An infantry regiment with the AT battalion, a company from the AA battalion and no arty, perhaps. Whatever you feel the situation requires.





< Message edited by Mehring -- 1/2/2016 8:07:28 PM >


_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 5
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 7:06:01 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11315
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Maybe it would indeed be a good idea to have StuGs in PzGren div TOE, to better reflect reality than what was planned on paper, and let the tanks go to panzer divs. This would solve the problems without touching upgrade paths.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 6
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 8:25:11 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Maybe it would indeed be a good idea to have StuGs in PzGren div TOE, to better reflect reality than what was planned on paper, and let the tanks go to panzer divs. This would solve the problems without touching upgrade paths.


The TOEs as well as the dates for the (official historical) changes are correct in WITE. However, the way the equipment upgrade process works in WITE, is difficult to replicate actual historical upgrades. It seems the timing of TOE changes in WITE and when the old equipment is removed and new equipment received is sometimes delayed or somewhat random. I think a very easy solution (as it concerns the PzGren Divs) would be to create an interim TOE, between the 42 Mot Div and 43 PzGren Div TOEs. The change from tanks to Stugs happens in Jul 43 in WITE. Historically, I think the 43 PzGren Div TOE with Stugs didn't come out until Sep 43 but might have been somewhat after the fact to make official already existing field changes. Perhaps the interim TOE in WITE could cut out (or severely reduce) the tank numbers in late 42 until the 43 PzGren TOE kicks in during the summer of 43.

Having looked into it a bit further, I now recall that many Mot Divs (as well as Panzer Divs in quiet sectors) in the spring of 1942 were stripped of their Panzer Bns (or had them reduced) to flesh out Panzer Divs for the coming summer offensive. Further, some Mot Divs didn't have a Panzer Bn at all in 41-42. This could be replicated by having reduced tank TOEs for some Panzer and Mot divisions (as well as a alternate Mot Div TOE without a Panzer Bn) to help direct more tank replacements to the Panzer Divs that will need it for summer 1942. Unfortunately, this is more a result of historical circumstance (combat tank losses), which won't necessarily occur the same way in WITE games. However, I think the limited German AFV production in 1942 (there will never be enough to equip all Divisions in accordance with their full TOEs) could be enough justification to create reduced AFV TOEs for some 42 Mot and Panzer Divs, which might help to direct more tanks away from the Mot/PzGren Divs in 42-43. Alternatively, players simply put some Divs on lower Max TOE.

I know the devs would hesitate at trying to replicate/hardcode too much historical detail like this that is largely dependent on variable in-game results (combat losses), much like they've left the building of the Russian Army to being situation dependent, rather than historical hardcoding.

A little bit of irony in this, is that in the old Gary Grigsby's War in Russia (WIR) game 25 years ago, one could manage all this relatively easily (other AFV hacks notwithstanding...), as Divisions had AFV Bn sub-TOEs that would come and go largely based on history (and could also be somewhat managed by the player). I think it would complicate WITE greatly to replicate that though, as well as opening some doors to cheats/gaming the system, as was the case with WIR.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 1/2/2016 9:46:04 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 7
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 8:36:02 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

It would be entirely possible, then, to replicate historical equipment swap outs such as, for example, the German divisional anti-tank battalion which tended to receive new PaK 38s, later PaK 40s, before regimental AT units, which retained the PaK 35/36 and PaK 38 respectively. Security divisions would not get the best equipment any more, ever, unless you happened to be swimming in the stuff.


I think that could turn into a nightmare to code. I wonder if a simpler solution might be to introduce a replacement/upgrade priority (separate but similar to Max TOE setting). Say 1-3 (1-low, 2-default, 3-high). It could be a setting in the editor, or a game function changeable by the player in the same way Max TOE is. Units with a lower setting would not get any new/upgraded equipment until 80-90% of higher priority units were equipped. As I'm not a programmer, that could be a coding nightmare as well though.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 8
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 8:55:34 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11315
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
Having looked into it a bit further, I now recall that many Mot Divs (as well as Panzer Divs in quiet sectors) in the spring of 1942 were stripped of their Panzer Bns (or had them reduced) to flesh out Panzer Divs for the coming summer offensive.


Yeah, I read about that too. Some Panzer Divs in the north/center were left with just 1 battalion of tanks, so that those in the south got (mostly) three per division. In WitE this can be replicated only by moving more Panzer Divs south.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 9
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 8:57:45 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6503
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: online
Many PzG divs (former mot inf) had their Panzerabteilung assigned upon reforming as PzG div, not earlier. I just found 2 or 3 mot inf divs which actually had a Panzerabteilung.
Looks like I need another separate OB path for those without Panzerabteilung.
The composition of the Panzerabteilung in mot divs looks a bit strange as it lacks some Pz IIs + too many Pz IV(lg)

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 10
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 9:00:11 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11315
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

It would be entirely possible, then, to replicate historical equipment swap outs such as, for example, the German divisional anti-tank battalion which tended to receive new PaK 38s, later PaK 40s, before regimental AT units, which retained the PaK 35/36 and PaK 38 respectively. Security divisions would not get the best equipment any more, ever, unless you happened to be swimming in the stuff.


I think that could turn into a nightmare to code. I wonder if a simpler solution might be to introduce a replacement/upgrade priority (separate but similar to Max TOE setting). Say 1-3 (1-low, 2-default, 3-high). It could be a setting in the editor, or a game function changeable by the player in the same way Max TOE is. Units with a lower setting would not get any new/upgraded equipment until 80-90% of higher priority units were equipped. As I'm not a programmer, that could be a coding nightmare as well though.


Yes, it's near impossible to fit this extra information in unit data structure, and it's hard to make GUI for this. This isn't something that can be done for WitE 1 in justifiable time (and effort). We must rely on the semi-random upgrade/swap process here. Security divisions sitting in the rear on railheads unfortunately have a bonus to this, on the other hand they are mostly full and full units are less prone to switch equipment, so this plays in the frontline units favour.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 11
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 10:59:29 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6503
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: online
I have now identified the 3rd, 16th, 29th and 60th mot div as having a Panzerabteilung assigned from early summer 42 on, the others got theirs during PzG conversion (majority of them got StuG Abteilungen).
Made a special OB path for the 4 units containing 12 Pz IIf, 35 Pz IIIm and 8 Pz IVg. They may still get Panthers in 43 but only for a short time, once transformend into PzG they'll be kicked out.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 12
RE: PzGren OB - 1/2/2016 11:01:55 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, it's near impossible to fit this extra information in unit data structure, and it's hard to make GUI for this. This isn't something that can be done for WitE 1 in justifiable time (and effort).

Agreed, the changes that can be made in the current game are marginal. I mentioned my proposals in the WitE 2 thread but fleshed them out here a bit as I received no comment there and Schmart's post inspired elaboration.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 13
RE: PzGren OB - 1/3/2016 4:13:37 AM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

I have now identified the 3rd, 16th, 29th and 60th mot div as having a Panzerabteilung assigned from early summer 42 on, the others got theirs during PzG conversion (majority of them got StuG Abteilungen).
Made a special OB path for the 4 units containing 12 Pz IIf, 35 Pz IIIm and 8 Pz IVg. They may still get Panthers in 43 but only for a short time, once transformend into PzG they'll be kicked out.


Sounds like you got it all right I think this is a nice solution. Thanks for the quick action!

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 14
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 1:06:37 AM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
The TOEs as well as the dates for the (official historical) changes are correct in WITE. However, the way the equipment upgrade process works in WITE, is difficult to replicate actual historical upgrades. It seems the timing of TOE changes in WITE and when the old equipment is removed and new equipment received is sometimes delayed or somewhat random.


The ToE's(Kriegsstärkenachweisung (K.St.N)) for the Germans are not 100% correct, in most cases,especially regarding Panzer/SS Panzer divisions they are generic and I can understand why(as much as I hate it). Early in the war German Panzer divisions opererated with several ToE's, some had 3 Panzer Batt's some had 2, later in the war(especailly 1944 onwards) you would be hard pressed to find any 2 divisions with the same ToE due to losses, restructuring and re-equipping etc. An example of the generic ToE is the Totenkopf compared to the LSSAH and Das Reich, after Kursk when the latter two divisions lost their Tiger companies, the Totenkopf retained it's Tiger company and kept it until the end of the war, but this is not reflected in the game as all three share the same ToE.

As to your point about the timing of ToE changes being random or delayed you could look upon this as being historical e.g. not all divisions received new Panthers at the same time as each other, and they also could be re-allocated e.g. on the 3rd December 1943 the Inspector of Panzertroops reported that the 76 Panthers scheduled for the Totenkopf had actually being issued to the Wiking division and the Totenkopf's first 4 Panthers weren't sent by rail until January 1944.

Secondly, although new ToE's e.g. Panzer Division 1944, were brough out divisions didn't automatically go over to the new ToE, divisions didn't change over until they received orders to do so, hence my point about no two divisions being the same late in the war.

I realise I've talked about panzer divisions here but the same would apply to the PzGr divisions.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 15
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 2:49:07 AM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
The TOEs as well as the dates for the (official historical) changes are correct in WITE. However, the way the equipment upgrade process works in WITE, is difficult to replicate actual historical upgrades. It seems the timing of TOE changes in WITE and when the old equipment is removed and new equipment received is sometimes delayed or somewhat random.


The ToE's(Kriegsstärkenachweisung (K.St.N)) for the Germans are not 100% correct, in most cases,especially regarding Panzer/SS Panzer divisions they are generic and I can understand why(as much as I hate it). Early in the war German Panzer divisions opererated with several ToE's, some had 3 Panzer Batt's some had 2, later in the war(especailly 1944 onwards) you would be hard pressed to find any 2 divisions with the same ToE due to losses, restructuring and re-equipping etc. An example of the generic ToE is the Totenkopf compared to the LSSAH and Das Reich, after Kursk when the latter two divisions lost their Tiger companies, the Totenkopf retained it's Tiger company and kept it until the end of the war, but this is not reflected in the game as all three share the same ToE.

As to your point about the timing of ToE changes being random or delayed you could look upon this as being historical e.g. not all divisions received new Panthers at the same time as each other, and they also could be re-allocated e.g. on the 3rd December 1943 the Inspector of Panzertroops reported that the 76 Panthers scheduled for the Totenkopf had actually being issued to the Wiking division and the Totenkopf's first 4 Panthers weren't sent by rail until January 1944.

Secondly, although new ToE's e.g. Panzer Division 1944, were brough out divisions didn't automatically go over to the new ToE, divisions didn't change over until they received orders to do so, hence my point about no two divisions being the same late in the war.

I realise I've talked about panzer divisions here but the same would apply to the PzGr divisions.


All points well taken.

I meant that the standard/generic TOE for the 42 Mot and 43 PzGren Divs in WITE are essentially accurate.

The timing of equipment changes was meant to shine light on the WITE process, where the change in equipment isn't always in one fell swoop, whereas historically a new Bn (or Bn worth of tanks) generally arrived all at once, or the Div was sent to France to refit.

This is all the fun/frustration of TOE/OOB nuts like us trying to work within the confines of relatively strict programming rules.

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 16
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 10:06:04 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11315
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

The timing of equipment changes was meant to shine light on the WITE process, where the change in equipment isn't always in one fell swoop, whereas historically a new Bn (or Bn worth of tanks) generally arrived all at once, or the Div was sent to France to refit.


Including bugs fixed for 1.08.08, WitE at times is working as you describe. First a unit must change its TOE. Then it reorganizes itself around the new TOE trying to match elements as best as possible to those specified in TOE. Then, when it tries to swap active elements (like in-production Pz IV to Pz V that are not "related" by being part of the same upgrade chain), it tries to get full complement of the new element. So this is similar to getting a full Bn worth of tanks in one go. If it will get less than that, it will keep some Pz IV unless there is not enough free slots (this is partially bugged in .07).

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 17
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 11:21:53 AM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1042
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Wonder if all above is missing the point, because in later stages of WWII (IMHO) Axis establishment was responding more to local, tactical "needs" rather than then to strategic "plan." Consequently, hard to imagine game code that could do this.

Details are always interesting, but hope that pursuit of such does not harm the many other issues that affect the game, such as playability, production, supply, logistics, combat factors, etc.

Next version of "1.0" is important, but more so "2.0." Hope that focus on details does not delay work on larger issues.

At some level of "game play" appearances will matter, as when simple cartoons of equipment are replaced by detailed representations. But, that's some way off.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 18
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 12:10:09 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Wonder if all above is missing the point, because in later stages of WWII (IMHO) Axis establishment was responding more to local, tactical "needs" rather than then to strategic "plan." Consequently, hard to imagine game code that could do this.

Details are always interesting, but hope that pursuit of such does not harm the many other issues that affect the game, such as playability, production, supply, logistics, combat factors, etc.

Next version of "1.0" is important, but more so "2.0." Hope that focus on details does not delay work on larger issues.

At some level of "game play" appearances will matter, as when simple cartoons of equipment are replaced by detailed representations. But, that's some way off.

I'd say it was more a question of strategic economic plan failing to satisfy tactical needs, resulting in de-standardisation. To varying degrees this endured through the war.

If WitE elements are working anything like they should, these details will impact considerably on game play. It's surely evident that if a StuG actually works in the game, having 800+ of all versions - May 43- in production pools while half my new MBTs are stuck in PzG divisions and Pz Divs are struggling to maintain numbers (nothing like as bad as historically, but that's a losses issue) is going to negatively impact upon my Axis combat effectiveness.

That must be obvious, but the allocation of modern MG and AT assets to 2nd line units, for example, while not such a headline issue, is having the same effect. Further, it's impossible to make overall game play balance tweaks when the "little" stuff, the details if you like, are so out of whack. Consider my Axis CV with 800 more tanks at the front (we already have several hundred too many panther Ds) and modern equipment where it's supposed to be. Historical employment of equipment is going to mean a lot of other things will need re-jigging to prevent a runaway Axis CV hike.

As a congenital micromanager I would love the ability to see the subunits of my divisions and attempt to equip them according to tactical need and historical usage. Likewise, shifting whole "organic WitE 1" battalions between divisions as morvael was saying makes a significant material change to game play. Since the tank arm was rapidly expanded for Barbarossa by removing tank regiments from the old Pz Divs and building new divisions around them, when we come to an expansion of WitW or arrive at a grand WiE, the issue will have to be addressed.

Clearly it's too big an overhaul for WitE 1 but I can see my proposal above working and greatly enhancing WitE 2 and beyond. Like I say, it would give you options to use at your discretion or just ignore if you're so inclined. Everybody should be happy, assuming game coders enjoy their work :)

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 19
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 12:59:19 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11315
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
If WitE elements are working anything like they should, these details will impact considerably on game play. It's surely evident that if a StuG actually works in the game, having 800+ of all versions - May 43- in production pools while half my new MBTs are stuck in PzG divisions and Pz Divs are struggling to maintain numbers (nothing like as bad as historically, but that's a losses issue) is going to negatively impact upon my Axis combat effectiveness.


That is core of the TOE/OB matching issue in WitE 1, to utilize available equipment that is not build on-demand, because it's frustrating to see hundreds of unused AFVs when units are understrength because they want a specific make of an AFV. And it's only partially solved now - units can keep some non-standard elements for a while, but they will try to fill their slots in a way that is compatible with their TOE and send back the rest. And they will never ask for anything that doesn't match their TOE in the first place. This means they must have at least (for example) a medium tank in a medium tank slot, not an assault gun. I fear that if I were to relax those restrictions without specifying some allowed matches between units and elements there would be a mess, with panzer divisions riding in stugs (higher production, larger pool, easier to switch to for units with big slots), and less important units in newest tanks.

So it ends up as a task for TOE designer to actually make TOEs using those elements that were used IRL (like StuGs in PzGren divs) in order for them to be used that way, instead of entering just the ideal TOE as described by generic KStN, and hoping the engine would do the rest, because it won't.

< Message edited by morvael -- 1/4/2016 2:01:46 PM >

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 20
RE: PzGren OB - 1/4/2016 3:02:11 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

The timing of equipment changes was meant to shine light on the WITE process, where the change in equipment isn't always in one fell swoop, whereas historically a new Bn (or Bn worth of tanks) generally arrived all at once, or the Div was sent to France to refit.


Historically new equipment didn't arrive all at once whether the unit was sent to e.g. France to refit or not.

The Totenkopf received it's first 4 Panthers in January 1944, it then received 6 in March, 5 in June, and then 77 in July 1944 but these arrived throughout the month in deliveries of 8,2,2,1,8,8,8,8,8,8,5,5,2,4, of which 5 were exchanged and re-issued to I./Pz Regt 16 and 4 were handed over from I./ Pz Regt 27. The Panther battalion was then sent to the eastern front at the end of July 1944 a full 6 months after receiving it's first Panther delivery and this is just one example.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 21
RE: PzGren OB - 1/6/2016 12:50:19 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6503
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

An example of the generic ToE is the Totenkopf compared to the LSSAH and Das Reich, after Kursk when the latter two divisions lost their Tiger companies, the Totenkopf retained it's Tiger company and kept it until the end of the war, but this is not reflected in the game as all three share the same ToE.

This should be fixed now with a separate OB path retaining the Tigers.

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> PzGren OB Page: [1]
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148