Only rule change I've noticed was that units with morale of 80 only take 2 MPs to go through unconverted clear hex, whereas before unit needed 85 morale. Still 3 for lower morale and more MP for units with much lower morale. Effect is therefore 1/3rd increase and only for a very small number of units. I suppose a few panzers might be able to make it to the Luga in 3 turns IF the Russians left a clear path, but if they can now they could before.
The effect isnt 1/3. If u have 10 MP and pays 3 MP per clear hex u can move 3 hexes. U can move 5 hexes if u pay 2 MP per hex. Thats more than a 50% increase in actual moved hexes. Now i do say up too 50% because the effect is highest in clear hexes and less but non the less real in other terrains too, with river crossings making for the least change.
AS to number of units that many starts with 85+ moral, 80+ is more frequest plus those getting above it during the campaign. Those 70 inf units moral have it much easier to get to 80 than 85. The knock of effect is once u swicthed the sides of hexes it still costs 1 per clear so the follow up movement gets effected too.
Those lower costs are only for infantry. For infantry 1 MP represents 10 hours 30 minutes of time, for Panzers only 3 hours 21 minutes. Whereas motorized units are faster when it comes to road movement, speed of advance into enemy territory (let's call it tactical movement) is quite slow for both and speed advantage is reduced. So 2MP for infantry means 21 hours, 3 MP for panzers just 6 hours 42 minutes. No need for infantry to be 5 times slower (31:30 vs 6:42) than panzers, 3 times is enough.
U used the same kind argument in regards too losses. I think that kinda thinking is flawed. ill try and explain why i think that.
Anyway, 2-3 hasty attacks represent one day of fighting. Apart from too low losses during a fighting withdrawal I think the ratios lost per day of battle are quite reasonable. You can't have so bloody battles that after few hours battle entire units would be gutted. The bigger the battle and more units engaged (sometimes an entire army), the lower the % of losses taken should be.
When u start to make math of what is humanly possible and not use what in fact in history/actual war was possible, the mesauring stick is going to be totally off. What theoritically could happen and what did happen usually is far apart and my point is its the latter that is interresting not the former or ops tempo is going out the window game wise.
Apart from special situasion u dont see for example 43+ and russian advances german unit being involved in more than 2 and more rarely 3 combat during a week/turn. Typically the number is rather 1 in my experince and from looking at AARs. Can u find examples of more than 3 or set you theoritical situasions where unit gets to be involved in more than 3 combat during a turn, sure. Non the less its not how teh game genrally plays out. Ofc u can be "stupid" and make 10 hasty attacks in the german phase too but if we discount such non sense and look at how the game actually plays out.
A situasion/disucssion like what sparked that comment was a Pz div being retreated twice in a turn. I can only say i look at that much different than a question of 16 hours or 24 hours of combat. 2 retreats or 35 km withdrawl wasnt under normal circumstances done by germans in 1943 or 1944 in 16/24 hours. Less we taking a Bagration type thing which clearly wasnt the case in the AAR and teh losses there would come from surrenders not combats.. The 2 hexes is also close to the average weekly retreat in fall of 43 so to me this rather represents close to a full week of fighting/gradual withdrawl. Futher if that is teh thot process that the combats only represent so short a time, why is the russian casulties in these changes looking at AARs twice the weekly average russian losses. If there to few "combats" as is and the ops tempo needs to be higher the russian tank losses woudl just increase even more. So it doesnt compute that the combat only represent X little amount of time with the current russian losses.
In another way if u to have a full week of fighthing having 10+ hasty attack for motorised troops to represent a full weeks of fighting, and that is used as a base for losses in the indiviual combat u going to be in actual game play always find losses to be very much lower than historic, because that never actually happen in game.
I look at in a meta way. A Pz div having retreated twice in a turn is having a very bad week and losses should be reflected in that and is not(underlinging using the word AFV not tank) at 1% permant losses for that week or u never ever gona get close to historic losses.
I see it the same with movement. The fact that u can make pockets in a week spaning over litteraly a 500+ km front with 2 pincers was never historicly done in that time span. So the pz divs might actually drive that far theortically, but as it never was done in combat/entering enemy territory. The base line should be made from what was actually in real life, with soem special rules for turn 1/2. What was possible in rela life, not what theoritically was possible.
I dont see this alone. The movement within friendly lines should be lower some how, either by less MP or activation so u dont necesarily just run out of pockets, but already in 42 things were much different and there is a reason u saw much less pocketing in 42. The reason is among other that russian reacted faster than in 41.
Before ppl start to shout about the no retreat order of 28 july 1942. They should study what happens the exact same day to the Caucasus front and what its orders was on that exact same day from STAVA/Stalin him self. Not to talk about the whole operation of said front following that.
Just about the only thing ppl have agree up on since the start of the game, is that ops tempo is to high for both sides. As logistics never really have curtailed it enough. That leaves movement is the only real way to deal with it(lessen it)in wite1.0. In that light its a bit confounding to me that a fix/alteration has been made that that increase the ops tempo. Futher if u indeed thot that movement was to low why hasnt the change been made to all sides. Why isnt it true that axis minor and RU inf should move more. As currently implimented it only have an effect on german and possibly finnish units with the effect being seen mostly in 41-42.
If it was a general thing that inf moved to little compared to motorised units why is the change so one sided?
If we wanted to study german inf movement its fairly easy. Using the Smolensk operations as a mesauring stick seems appropiate. The conditions leading up too it is easily replicated within teh game engine. In order for the operation to go ahead the motorized troops had to wait for the inf to come up. That happens in game too but the major diffiference is when in game the inf catches up and compared to in reality. As in the first turn there really is only as much u can do as russins in stopping teh germans and its standart for any experience player to arrive at teh landbridge at end the german turn 2 phase with some motorised troops. Leaving a path of all friendly hexes for those leading inf unit trying to catch. Its easily replicated in game.
Then just compare inf move in game to when it actually arrives is fairly easy. Clearly u can set up theoritically parameters inf should move X per day. Problem is history defys that, it takes longer. So that my reason not to give much for these theoritical approches to losses and movement. IMO history and giveing leway to either side of the historic yard stick is a much better measuring stick IMO. Looking at it overall i've hard time to se what justifies a increased ops tempo as the game in its current state plays out. If any thing it should be lowered significantly for both sides IMO.
< Message edited by Walloc -- 3/22/2016 4:41:42 PM >