Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderators: RedLancer, Joel Billings

Post Reply
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: loki100


well I'd quibble that they are a significant issue to the discussion - the issue is not axis losses in the winter (which can be readily managed) but the expansion of the Red Army at a time when it was surviving hand to mouth?

The above was a conversation that was in M60's AAR. I want to bring it here since I really believe Assault HQ's are the culprit for many of the woes we face. I am not going to do a college thesis paper but a short paragraph to give my 2 cents. Please share your 2 cents too. Thank you in advance.

The Red Army that I am facing is well rested, well stocked, equal in combat power, and has the benefit of terrain & hit/run tactics with these OP Assualt HQ Units. I am sure a very large part of the Red Army is under the 2 Assault HQ. Trying to inflict losses on those Russians is like throwing spitballs at a wall. The only sure way is to surround them since retreating them gets laughable results(only if you are able to keep the pocket closed). I am just not talking about the Soviet Assualt HQ's in 41 but I am talking about Assault HQ's in General. Assault HQ's should have "less" not more units that can attach to them. Plus shouldn't Assualt HQ's pull more freight for the added benefit? There is no restriction I can see, I am sure someone will correct me. So Yes Loki the Red Army in my game in 41 is like a Red Army of 42 and living pretty lavishly and not only surviving but thriving. If it wasn't for my surrounding of units the Soviets would be living in a penthouses in NYC. I am 100% certain now that the Assualt HQ's are the problem for both sides with current iteration in 41.

HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior
...

Loki don’t be so defensive and simply look at the results.

Gundam is basically mocking the whole system by having 1,000,000 men in reserve and still achieving an unhistorical great 41/42 winter. SHC does not need to defend Leningrad, black sea ports, planes or those 1,000,000 men. Just run at just the right speed, because of a poorly designed logistics system.

The current model is all about SHC running at the correct speed as Q-ball and I have talked about in PMs. It has zero to do with trucks and trains, player skills ect ect. If SHC runs at the correct speed you will get unhistorically low Russian loses and an unhistorical 41/42 winter SHC offensive which German army simply can’t recover from because it causes a feedback loop and than SHC is on a unhistorical offensive in 42. This running at just the right speed tactic is used because of special rules put on the Germans logistics system.

As AlbertN points out “ the issue is that hardly Germans can achieve historical results as of now - which should be the 'Average' of the game. How many Axis players get to Orel, Rostov, Kursk etcetera. And how many can also keep a good portion of these through the coming winter?”

This is all caused by special rules to the German logistics system. If the logistics system is so great why all the special rules that cause the game to be so unhistorical?

This will become more unhistorical and more boringly predictable as more and more AARs show players how to game the poor logistics model.


no body is being defensive, but I'd strongly suggest that its not the logistics system. I have a game to T12, I have 40 MP+ mobile units, 14+ infantry and can do very little with that asset.

The issue lies in the Soviet use of assault fronts, that solves their command problems, gets most units under good commanders, avoids the problem of how to rest and refit when on a strategic retreat, plus the movement and combat capacity to inflict serious damage.

play without that and you get the game we saw late in the beta, plenty of variation, plenty of instances of perfectly ok German players (like me) doing fine. I ran one test game into mid-42, did less well in the north, was running around the Caucasus, in other words the sort of situation you'd broadly expect to see.

You've done a good job so far of not being too Pelton like to raise no concerns ... thats something worth keeping up [;)]

O.O last sentence!!! I have to agree. But yes, Assault HQ's are the problem and I have been bringing that up along with others. Need another look see for sure. Thank you all


Copied this over from the Roadwarrior thread with more good input on Assault HQ's
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by Zemke »

The concept of Assault HQ is an interesting one. It adds the concept that taking the time to plan and prepare should equal better results. But I think the implementation is "off". Is not a deliberate attack the same thing, taking the time to plan and execute a well planned assault? It seems very artificial that a Unit can go from 5-6 Combat to 15 Combat if it has 100% CPP, (very rough example). This seems too much of a variation. And it takes at least two turn to go from 0 to 100 CCP.

I pose the question why in both WitE1 and now WitE2 we have these artificial means to boost unit combat power. What exactly are the designers trying to do? Is this meant as a balancing method, not sure, why I ask. I think fatigue and logistics could be the answer not artificial nebulas game inducted systems.

If the programing for fatigue and logistics were adjusted, or keep the CPP method but tweak all three factors to get closer to a realistic game, or incorporating more of the hard to quantify factors in the game.

The real determinate of combat power are, leadership, competency to operate from the individual level (training and discipline) to the different organizational levels (Good Company Grade Officers and NCOs, to competent Battle Staffs at the higher levels), and moral, (willingness to fight) then numbers of men and weapons. Out of all these, good leadership combined with training, will generate competency. I have argued that the results of Desert Storm would have been the same, if the US had been armed with Iraqi weapons and they with US weapons. US casualties would certainly been higher, but the outcome would not be any different because the primary determinate is Leadership and Competency at all levels of the organization. The Iraq Military generally had bad leadership and poor competency, the US did not.

WitE2 uses numbers of weapons, Experience, fatigue and moral. Experience is rough generalization of leadership, training, and competency. Fatigue seems to represent several things, real physical fatigue, maintenance backlog (maybe) not sure. Moral in the game is tired to National Moral, that represents training and experience...kind of, but also represents direct moral, for example when a unit takes a loss, it also loses moral.

Anyway, bottom-line maybe manipulating the current in game factors or adding in more variable factors discussed above could help take out the artificial means to replicate history. Because I don't really see unit combat power jumping from 10 to 40 (Pz Div), a multiple of four just because it sat around and "planned" for two weeks.
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
AlbertN
Posts: 3842
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by AlbertN »

I feel the Assault stuff is -part- of the problem but not -all- the problem.

Nonetheless - in general to find a balance (and by balance I mean a game that can be enjoyed by both ends through the '41 to '44 - whereas in '44 Germany can still launch localized counteroffensives and the like.) changes need to be gradual.

Presently we have the '41 that is bogus, and needs fixing - and then to be seen the future.

For the specifics of Assault HQs I feel that:

A) Assault HQ should not expand Command Capacity.
B) Assault HQ loses -ALL- of their benefits for the turn if they get overloaded in Command Capacity. [That includes Army level command] Presently I do not believe there is a problem to have bazillion of Corps or so in an Army, it just penalizes the Army 'safety net' rolls, but not the Corps one (Which in virtue of being Assault, are enhanced if I've well read the manual).

C) Soviets should not have Assault HQ capacity in '41 or at least til Decembre '41 (I'd say '41 for ease), can have 1 in '42, 2 in '43, etc. Why that? Fronts are LARGER than Armies. Also the Soviets are more 'meatgrinder' approach, and slower to prepare / build up in CCP to fine tune out the fact they have way more units (that in virtue of how the CCP are 'spent' that favors who has more units)

I think that is a needed start as bare minimum - but I believe there are still other problems looming and lingering.

One of them is how easily Soviets can replace their leaders - that is related to the Admin Points that the Soviets have. But maybe for another topic.
Another is the Admin Movement the Soviets have - that will still allow them to retreat merrily and swiftly as they need.
jubjub
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by jubjub »

There's a couple of issues related to the assault HQ's.

The first is capacity. 1941 assault HQ capacity is 270 for Axis and 240 for the Soviets. The obvious strategy is to have both assault HQ's up and running by turns 2-3, which means that 120 Soviet divisions will have the assault status very early compared to the 135 Axis. However, the Germans often only use 40/45 or less because they need to be able to split their units into regiments. With 1/9 capacity not utilized (or used on regiments), this leaves the Axis with 240 command points of assault status, already making the capacities the same from turn 3!

The second issue is utilization. The two Soviet assault fronts (West/SW) typically defend an area ~30 hexes in width each, which means you can have 60 divisions on the front and 60 divisions resting in the rear. In addition, not all of the 60 front line units come into contact with an enemy, and may build up the full 50 CPP in a turn. If 15 units are retreated every turn, we can assume a typical turn will see the Soviets generate of 45*25 + 60*50 = 4100 points of CPP each turn from their assault fronts.

Meanwhile, the Axis has to attack and move with their assault units, burning CPP and preventing CPP build up. A typical turn will only see the Axis player able to rest 1/4 of their assault fronts, while the rest are busy attacking and spending their SMP's. With 1/4 resting, this gives the Axis 120/4 * 50 = 1,500 points per turn. This means in a typical turn, the Soviets out produce CPP's by almost a factor of 3, and this is before you consider the rest of the units on the map! Even if the Axis decides to rest all of his assault HQ units, they will only marginally out prepare the Soviet assault HQ's, and will not gain an advantage from resting.

This means the Soviet player will be able to find high CPP units to prepare a strong defense no matter what the German player does, and without much extra effort besides clicking the 'set assault' button and putting everyone under those fronts.

IMO, the Soviets should get one assault HQ in November/december, and another two every november/december, maxing out at 5. They don't need the full 6 in '45. I've played the Vistula to Berlin campaign and had at least one front sitting around with no one under its command. The Axis also have too many assault HQ's in '41, and you can typically have at least 2 armies sitting around with no units if you max out your 6 assault HQ's.
User avatar
GibsonPete
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by GibsonPete »

"A) Assault HQ should not expand Command Capacity. [I feel bad that armies are stripped of units entirely and wholly to fuel the Assault units.
C) Soviets should not have Assault HQ capacity in '41 or at least til Decembre (sic) '41 (I'd say '41 for ease), can have 1 in '42, 2 in '43, etc."

I agree with the above. The game has been out a couple of months and is still in need of some tweaking.
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
hei1
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:40 am
Location: Germany

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by hei1 »

Meanwhile, the Axis has to attack and move with their assault units, burning CPP and preventing CPP build up. A typical turn will only see the Axis player able to rest 1/4 of their assault fronts, while the rest are busy attacking and spending their SMP's. With 1/4 resting, this gives the Axis 120/4 * 50 = 1,500 points per turn.

This leads to the very strange situation: keep an assault army behind(!) the front and assign burned out units to it until filled up. The non-assault unit will advance, until ... you exchange them again. Gamey.
BTW: I support the concept of CPP (among others: limited advance in combat). But its still not perfect...
--- it's not a bug, it's a feature ---
jubjub
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by jubjub »

ORIGINAL: hei1
Meanwhile, the Axis has to attack and move with their assault units, burning CPP and preventing CPP build up. A typical turn will only see the Axis player able to rest 1/4 of their assault fronts, while the rest are busy attacking and spending their SMP's. With 1/4 resting, this gives the Axis 120/4 * 50 = 1,500 points per turn.

This leads to the very strange situation: keep an assault army behind(!) the front and assign burned out units to it until filled up. The non-assault unit will advance, until ... you exchange them again. Gamey.
BTW: I support the concept of CPP (among others: limited advance in combat). But its still not perfect...

With what units? Once you have 6 assault HQ’s, almost all your German units are under one anyway..
AlbertN
Posts: 3842
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by AlbertN »

As I said it does not help the fact it seems there is no real penalty for overloading an Assault HQ either.

Henceforth I feel the need -not to- expand the assault command ratings.

Nonetheless to me atm it's the mix of Soviet Excess of AP (that leads to quality Leadership on needed spots) + Assault that do not work - both bits. Plus a long list of things going through Panzer Division Brittleness to 'Fleeting Soviets' with no reason to fight, etc. But it will be a lengthy process in general to find a somehow good spot for the game - for what concerns PvP.
User avatar
erikbengtsson
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:50 am

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by erikbengtsson »

My idea of Soviet assault HQ:

Only one, from turn 24 until end of February of 42. None from Mars until October of 42, (possibly even end of October). Then two from October/November of 42. The third and final given in June of 43 (this can of course be house ruled in MP games until its possible patching).

Another thing also comes to mind.

The AP bonuses given to the Soviets in December of 41 should be for AI only. They are allegedly given to create ski battalions, rifle and cavalry corps. But the the Ski Bns are free, and the two rifle and eight cav corps that can be created in December only costs 120 AP (while 200 AP are given). Instead, make the two + eight December rifle and cav corps free.

While I haven't played that far yet, I am also pretty sure that the other AP bonus events should also be AI only. A human player should not be given these.
jubjub
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by jubjub »

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

As I said it does not help the fact it seems there is no real penalty for overloading an Assault HQ either.

Henceforth I feel the need -not to- expand the assault command ratings.

Nonetheless to me atm it's the mix of Soviet Excess of AP (that leads to quality Leadership on needed spots) + Assault that do not work - both bits. Plus a long list of things going through Panzer Division Brittleness to 'Fleeting Soviets' with no reason to fight, etc. But it will be a lengthy process in general to find a somehow good spot for the game - for what concerns PvP.

I'm certain this is a bug/exploit. I believe the game is supposed to strip the assault benefits if the assault HQ (Front, Axis army) is over capacity.


Image
Attachments
Capture.jpg
Capture.jpg (25.07 KiB) Viewed 88 times
Aurelian
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

My idea of Soviet assault HQ:

Only one, from turn 24 until end of February of 42. None from Mars until October of 42, (possibly even end of October). Then two from October/November of 42. The third and final given in June of 43 (this can of course be house ruled in MP games until its possible patching).

Another thing also comes to mind.

The AP bonuses given to the Soviets in December of 41 should be for AI only. They are allegedly given to create ski battalions, rifle and cavalry corps. But the the Ski Bns are free, and the two rifle and eight cav corps that can be created in December only costs 120 AP (while 200 AP are given). Instead, make the two + eight December rifle and cav corps free.

While I haven't played that far yet, I am also pretty sure that the other AP bonus events should also be AI only. A human player should not be given these.

And meanwhile you'll leave the Germans with 6.... Interesting.....

Just what are you basing that idea on?
When I argued with the Empress, I always had the last word. That word was, sorry. But it was the last word.
Aurelian
Posts: 3914
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I feel the Assault stuff is -part- of the problem but not -all- the problem.

Nonetheless - in general to find a balance (and by balance I mean a game that can be enjoyed by both ends through the '41 to '44 - whereas in '44 Germany can still launch localized counteroffensives and the like.) changes need to be gradual.

Presently we have the '41 that is bogus, and needs fixing - and then to be seen the future.

For the specifics of Assault HQs I feel that:

A) Assault HQ should not expand Command Capacity.
B) Assault HQ loses -ALL- of their benefits for the turn if they get overloaded in Command Capacity. [That includes Army level command] Presently I do not believe there is a problem to have bazillion of Corps or so in an Army, it just penalizes the Army 'safety net' rolls, but not the Corps one (Which in virtue of being Assault, are enhanced if I've well read the manual).

C) Soviets should not have Assault HQ capacity in '41 or at least til Decembre '41 (I'd say '41 for ease), can have 1 in '42, 2 in '43, etc. Why that? Fronts are LARGER than Armies. Also the Soviets are more 'meatgrinder' approach, and slower to prepare / build up in CCP to fine tune out the fact they have way more units (that in virtue of how the CCP are 'spent' that favors who has more units)

I think that is a needed start as bare minimum - but I believe there are still other problems looming and lingering.

One of them is how easily Soviets can replace their leaders - that is related to the Admin Points that the Soviets have. But maybe for another topic.
Another is the Admin Movement the Soviets have - that will still allow them to retreat merrily and swiftly as they need.


Soviet Fronts were about the size of Western Armies.
When I argued with the Empress, I always had the last word. That word was, sorry. But it was the last word.
User avatar
erikbengtsson
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:50 am

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by erikbengtsson »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

My idea of Soviet assault HQ:

Only one, from turn 24 until end of February of 42. None from Mars until October of 42, (possibly even end of October). Then two from October/November of 42. The third and final given in June of 43 (this can of course be house ruled in MP games until its possible patching).

Another thing also comes to mind.

The AP bonuses given to the Soviets in December of 41 should be for AI only. They are allegedly given to create ski battalions, rifle and cavalry corps. But the the Ski Bns are free, and the two rifle and eight cav corps that can be created in December only costs 120 AP (while 200 AP are given). Instead, make the two + eight December rifle and cav corps free.

While I haven't played that far yet, I am also pretty sure that the other AP bonus events should also be AI only. A human player should not be given these.

And meanwhile you'll leave the Germans with 6.... Interesting.....

Just what are you basing that idea on?
The current player versus player balance.
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5073
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by tyronec »

Assault HQ's have not really been tested for their impact on game balance to any great extent. For that we will need to see many more games played through by players of moderately balanced skill, and that is going to take some time as everyone's skill level increases through playing more competitive games.

For me I like the assault HQ's, they add another element to the game which makes it more interesting. However by having increased command capacity they have a major impact on leader use and indeed the whole army structure. The fact that your assault HQ has so much more command capacity takes a huge amount of the stress out of the command structure that would be there without them. So in '41 Axis have a glut of corps and army command capacity as do the Soviets once they get a couple of assault HQs in place. Gone are the days of having to have several Corps/Armies having to report directly to higher command. This is a shame as it takes those command comprises out of the game.

Would also concur with what others say that the Soviet assault HQs come too early, historically the Soviets were only beginning to get it together with their attack systems around Stalingrad and then becoming truly effective in '44.

My suggestion would be:
NO increase in command capacity for assault HQs.
Axis start with 4 in '41 and reduce by 1 every year. Or even 4 in '41 and none thereafter, that might be more historically accurate with Axis unable to sustain the '42 offensive with effective supplies.
Soviets get 2 at the end of '42 (ready for Uranus/Mars), increasing by 2 every year.

Overall that would be quite a nerf to the offensive power of both sides. I think that is appropriate but it is a guess and am really not sure what the impact would be. This game is immensely complicated and for me it has gone to a whole new level. However it it is not balanced, it can't be with such a level of complexity. I think it is going to require a lot of fine tuning, in the meantime the fun is in the playing while at the same time recognising that it is not fair and sometimes win or lose is pre determined before you start.

The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
Beethoven1
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:23 pm

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by Beethoven1 »

It may well be the case that assault HQs, at least for Soviets in 1941, are too good.

However, I hope that one thing that doesn't get lost in this conversation is that historically, the Soviets counterattacked in 1941. Not just a little bit, but a LOT. So if there is supposed to be a historical sort of experience in WITE2, then Soviets should counterattack in WITE2.

Now, here's the rub. As far as I can see, with how things are set up, for the most part you only want to attack (in particular with Soviets in 1941) if you have a lot of units to attack with in a battle which have full CPP, or at least fairly high CPP. And with how the game is set up, that will happen a lot more with assault HQs than otherwise. So the problem I see, at least potentially, is that if you take away assault HQs, then will Soviets still have an incentive and ability to counterattack?

Another consideration is it seems to me like there is often a pretty massive difference between the manpower/equipment lost between a successful attack and a failed attack. If Soviets do a failed attack, it can cost thousands of men and way disproportional losses. Whereas if they do a successful attack with overwhelming numbers, pretty often Soviets can inflict almost as many casualties on Germany as the amount of casualties that Soviets take. And because that difference is so large, if you are playing the Soviets and you want to counterattack, you are strongly incentivized to only do high odds counter-attacks which are likely to succeed. And what is one of the main things that makes counter-attacks have high odds and be more likely to succeed? You guessed it, high CPP from assault HQs. So if there are no assault HQs, a side effect of that might be that Soviets simply do not counterattack, or at least end up doing so a lot less often. Even with assault HQs as they are now, I would guess that currently most Soviet players counterattack less than Soviets counterattacked historically, because Soviet players generally are trying hard to carefully pick their battles and only attack if they have very good odds of a tactical victory. That may also be part of the reason why often Soviets seem to take lower than historical casualties - because Soviet players do fewer of these failed counterattacks, and so they don't take historical failed counterattack losses.

If I am on the right track here, then it might help if the incentive to counterattack (attack) were a bit less tied to whether an attack were actually successful. Historically Soviets launched many attacks, most of which were definitely unsuccessful... But they kept attacking anyway... For the player to be incentivized to do lots of unsuccessful attacks, I think there would need to be more benefit to doing failed attacks. For there to be more of an incentive to do that, it seems like the battle results of a successful attack vs. a failed attack should not be so totally different. Maybe the losses in combat results ought to be less binary, with fewer battles where Soviets and Germany both loses about the same amount of equipment (successful Soviet attacks) and fewer battles where Soviets take vastly disproportionate losses (failed Soviet attacks) and more losses that fall somewhere in between.

Another problem is it seems like most Soviet players try to do almost all of their counterattacks against Panzer divisions. There is a lot less incentive to counterattack against Infantry. Which is not exactly historical. Although a lot of Soviet counterattacks were against Panzer divisions, they also attacked plenty of German infantry as well.

So if assault HQs do get nerfed, I just hope that the game designers are careful to make sure that Soviets are still able and incentivized to do counterattacks.
User avatar
Hardradi
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:16 am
Location: Swan River Colony

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by Hardradi »

I agree no increase in command capacity of Assault HQs.

This should be the first step. Making broader changes is more likely to unravel the current scenario/campaign balance leading to more frustration.

Could the increased command capacity of Assault HQ's be made into a tick box?
Could the increased command capacity of Assault HQ's be tied to a turn by turn AP penalty like continuous motorisation?
AlbertN
Posts: 3842
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by AlbertN »

To Beethoven:

Attacks can cost the defender Action / Movement points in their subsequent turns (So I'd design it, in this type of game).
The Soviets incentive to attack is to delay the German advance, but that should come with huge losses on their end.
Obviously if the Soviets know they can get away due to logistic or other magical hamstrings keeping the Germans from advancing, they've no need to 'counterattack' as historically they did.

Not my idea but a concept used quite successfully by another game - that Soviets attack to deplete Axis supplies and fuel / readyness. Not to bleed them or rout them (Because in Summer '41 Soviets did not had that operational capability).
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by Zemke »

We seem hung up on the mythical game concept of Assault HQs and CCP. I still ask what the hell are they supposed to represent? In real life, I would call Ast HQs the Main Effort. But in WitE2 the German can have 6 Main Efforts, cannot be that. You cannot have 6 Main Efforts.

In real life a (EDITED: highly trained and experienced Staff of a) Division can crank out an attack plan through the Operation Order process in 24-48 hours and distribute that plan down the chain of command, which then each subordinate unit develops their Operation Orders, so in 3 days (Sooner many times) you could have a Division ready to execute deliberate combat operations. If Assault HQ are designed to simulate supply build up, then in this game, most units that can attack already have enough supply on hand. So again, I ask what are Assault HQs and CCP other than an arbitrary game mechanism. A more realistic approach would be to use the existing logistical system, combined with the quantifiable and definable variables (like fatigue) in conjunction with the usual variables that still are qualified, like experience, training, equipment. But jumps of combat effectiveness due to 100 CCP of four times is NOT in any way realistic or historical, and that a HQ designated an Assault HQ makes this happen even quicker is even less realistic. HQ Build up in WitE was ([Inserted] NOT) realistic or historical and CCPs and Assault HQs as used in the game are not either.

Last, Jubjub did the math and confirms it is no way historical or realistic. I think the concept is interesting, and CCP/ Assault HQs may have a place, but perhaps toned down or tweaked. I would get rid of both and use some of the other concepts I posted previously or a combination of the two.

I understand my suggestions will not happen because it would require a complete re-programing of the game, but some of the "milder" solutions above could be implemented and not drastically change the game and fix Assault HQ Soviet problem.
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
vinnysix
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:22 pm
Location: UK

RE: Assault HQ's

Post by vinnysix »

In relation to historical context - Russia probably comes closest to the concept of Assualt Formations/Armies/Divisions....

During the Second World War, the Red Army of the Soviet Union deployed five shock armies (Russian: ударные армии – singular: Russian: ударная армия) between 1941 and 1945. Many of the units, which spearheaded the Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front from the Battle of Stalingrad (1942–1943) to the Battle of Berlin (1945), were shock armies. Shock armies had high proportions of infantry, engineers, and field artillery, but with less emphasis on operational mobility and sustainability. Soviet shock armies were characterized by a higher allocation of army-level artillery units to break German defense positions by weight of fire, and often had heavy tank regiments or heavy self-propelled gun regiments to add additional direct fire-support. Once a shock army had made a breach in an enemy tactical position, more mobile units such as tank and mechanized corps would insert themselves through the shock army's positions with the mission of penetrating deep into the enemy rear area. By the end of the war, though, Soviet guards armies typically enjoyed superior artillery support to that of the shock armies.

Shock armies were instrumental in the execution of deep operation (also known as Soviet deep battle – Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya). The central composition of the deep operation was the shock army, each acting either in cooperation with each other or independently as part of a strategic front operation. Several shock armies would be subordinated to a strategic front.

Well-known shock armies include the 2nd Shock Army, which spearheaded several offensives in the Leningrad area, and the 3rd Shock Army, which played a key role in the Battle of Berlin.

A Soviet ad hoc combat group was a mixed-arms unit of about 80 men in assault groups of six to eight men, closely supported by field artillery. These tactical units were able to apply the tactics of house-to-house fighting that the Soviets had been forced to develop and refine at each Festungsstadt (fortress city) they had encountered from Stalingrad to Berlin.[7]

The Yugoslav Partisans also established "shock" units during World War II, commencing in February 1942. These initially formed as company- and battalion-sized units, and later grew into brigades.

In or amongst the German armed forces, large armies such as the Waffen-SS received training with the best gear and weapons, primarily used to hit weak points. The Waffen-SS also served as a heavy unit. Used to smash well-armed and -equipped armies on the Eastern Front, the Waffen-SS lost its efficacy after Kursk (1943), but nevertheless later fought in many theaters and played a role in the Battle of the Bulge (1944–1945).

I would point out that some german divisions were also designated Sturm divisions 78th I think.

After 1943 (particularly during and after the invasion of Italy), specialist British units, such as the Commandos and certain detachments of the Special Air Service were used as shock troops against well dug in or elite German forces. Again, both forces would be used in similar roles after the Allies crossed the Rhine, serving as a vanguard for British forces.

The modern British formation is 16 air assault brigade... So the concept is feasible and is meant to employ extra and possible elite formations to take on tough defenders in effect this requires extra training, buildup and supply with command focus given for operational purposes.

Just Saying....
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”