Soviet Rifle Brigades

[Wiedrock]

1. Numbers/History
   Can someone share some insights and/or sources related to the evolution of the Soviet Rifle Brigades? And their numbers "in existance" over time. Since in game we can build/have (183/148/118/42/20) of them.
   
   Meanwhile we can build/have 465/469/8/8 Rifle Divisions, so as an example - in 1942 I am wondering if not some of those 148 Rifle Brigades were/became actually parts of Rifle Divisions or Corpses (2/41/193/209) rather than being independedent Units forever?!
   
   From what I've found the idea was to create them since it's faster than creating a whole Division but somehow most of them in the end were either destroyed or used to form Divisions or Corpses already in 1942. But Destroying them by Shattering/Surrendering (while them being SUs) is....impossible, right?! (I am outruling the pocket/isolation system here!)
   Using Niehorsters Kursk OOB for the Soviets I can see many Tank Brigades, some Motroized Infantry Brigades, but rarely Rifle Brigades (I did not count them). Worth mentioning that sometimes they were used as a third unit of a Corps, so only 2 Divisions + 1 Brigade in the Corps.
   
   More infos appreciated!!!
2. Teleportation When having 140 Brigades at autumn 1942 means that you can teleport 700k men in small "Infantry Divisions" across the map in SU mode.
   ...finally I understand how Soviets managed to "secretly" collected manpower for Operation Uranus which appeared from nowhere!
3. Stacking penalties

   The size of the attacking force will also impact the number of shots taken in
   combat. This fire penalty occurs in combats where there is a large number of
   attacking units. The force value of the attacking side is calculated using the following
   values for each non-support, non-artillery division unit attacking:
   • Corps 15
   • Division 9
   • Brigade 5 (3 if the brigade has less than 2,000 men)
   • Regiment 3
   Once the force value exceeds 28 there is a chance that elements will not get to fire
   during combat. Artillery elements are much less affected (and this rule only affects
   them at closer ranges in combat), and the chance that elements will not fire
   increases as the force value increases. In general though, adding more units should
   result in more elements firing, but a lower percentage of the total elements will
   generally be firing as the force increases. The CV values of the attacking units are
   not changed by this rule.

   If you have 2 Corpses with 32k Men each and each with 3xRifle Brigade attached, you literally have the force of 3 Corpses 32k+32k+(6x5300)=~3 Corps while maintaining the Stacking penaltie of 2 Corps.
   I don't know what scale of effect the stacking penalty is supposed to have, but I am almost certain that the Additional "Corps" per 2 Corpses makes up for that effect.
   A limit of 1 Brigade-sized-SU per CU could be a solution to this. Right? Currently players mostly build Brigades for 100% meat-wave assaults.

[AlbertN]

I tend to go by gameplay and the vibe of what I feel as right / wrong and healthy for the game.
Here I am talking of Rifle / Marine brigades in particular, as per the topic.

The Soviets presently have an extreme advantage in Command Chain (They can bring more Armies from TBs where unlocked) while Axis struggles with their CC since '41, especially post removal of AG Antonescu.
While Axis have a nice handful of brigades and regiments that offer some flexibility, they're really few. Soviets can spam Brigades in abundance...

The benefit the SU have is that once depleted they can simply teleport to the relevant Supreme HQ and be refitted there.
Soviets as well can simply inflate their best leaders command by attaching 1 to 3 (Division or Corp) brigades to their relevant units.

Soviets can have a large amount of brigades (going by memory 50+).

Soviets already have exceptional stacking benefits (can fit up to 3 corps in 1 hex). You can imagine if you add 3 * 3 Brigades, which is another 36.000+ men roughly. Already 3 Divisions can host 3 brigades total, which net virtually 1.5 extra divisions on the hex.

If Soviets would have say a tenful of such units, like the Axis, it would not be a problem, it would be an interesting pick and choice made. Where to use them. Not to plaster them all over the place.

Things that I believe should be done:

A) Corps should only have 1 attached unit. (I believe this would be for the best, due to the other brigades too the Soviets can attach and I think it's better they instead got to keep them to the HQ)

AND / OR

B) Soviet Brigades are not a Multi-Role unit.

AND / OR

C) Have a Buildable Total per type.

Instead of splitting Infantr Corps, Divisions and Brigades, all of them conflux in a single total pool that can reach up to a specific roof. To have more Brigades will simply imply one can have less corps.

[DarkHorse2]

Is funny, because in SPI's "War In Europe" production system, Soviet Rifle Corps were built from the Soviet Rifle Brigades (which required you build the Brigades 1st).

But both sides seemed to cannibalize or reconstitute units all the time.

In the 1980s, this was the coolest WW2 production system ever!

---

WarInTheEast_Production.JPG (132.36 KiB) Viewed 1597 times

EDIT:

Here is a link to the complete PDF... look at all those charts!
https://1drv.ms/b/s!ApomLrihV-7hgeV-7fj ... A?e=wlyXrR

[Zovs]

Is funny, because in SPI's "War In Europe" production system, Soviet Rifle Corps were built from the Soviet Rifle Brigades (which required you build the Brigades 1st).

But both sides seemed to cannibalize or reconstitute units all the time.

In the 1980s, this was the coolest WW2 production system ever!

---

WarInTheEast_Production.JPG

That chart originally came out in 1976.

[Wiedrock]

The benefit the SU have is that once depleted they can simply teleport to the relevant Supreme HQ and be refitted there.

I didn't even think about this (since I just thought about Infantry which is somewhat "freight friendly" when refitting, but doing this with 200 Teleporting Tank Brigades may save some freight indeed.

Soviets can have a large amount of brigades (going by memory 50+).

Add a "0" and you are close.

[DarkHorse2]

Is funny, because in SPI's "War In Europe" production system, Soviet Rifle Corps were built from the Soviet Rifle Brigades (which required you build the Brigades 1st).

But both sides seemed to cannibalize or reconstitute units all the time.

In the 1980s, this was the coolest WW2 production system ever!

---

WarInTheEast_Production.JPG

That chart originally came out in 1976.

I know, but I was not introduced to it until 1980.

[AlbertN]

I play(ed) loads of World in Flames, that has a spiral for production. But that is for whole units in general. And belongs to another type of game ultimately!

[Wiedrock]

I play(ed) loads of World in Flames, that has a spiral for production. But that is for whole units in general.

In WITE2, Brigades can become Division and Divisions can become Corps, isn't that spiral enuff?

[Denniss]

a SU attachment limit of one per type would be nice + also CP point cost increase for at least rifle corps to reflect the real organization of 3 inf divs under corps HQ.
At least that would reduce those amassing of manpower without combat penalties

[Wiedrock]

a SU attachment limit of one per type would be nice [...].
At least that would reduce those amassing of manpower without combat penalties

There's generally a issue with the "density of Units" or Battalions per kilometer with the current "Hex stacking" and "SU attachment" allowances.

---

CORPS
Ingame a normal Rifle Corps ('43) has

• 1026 Rifle Squads.
• /4Squads = 256.5Platoons
• /3Platoons = 85.5Companies
• /3Companies = 28.5Battalions (we round down to 28)

....so one Corps has 28 Battalions.
(Just taking the basic Regiments I guess we'd rather see 4Sqx3Plx3Cox3Batx3Regx3Div=972. But for now we stay with the 28 (already rounded down) which should be close enuff since I don't feel like counting Squads right now.)

3 Corps in one Hex means:

• 3Corps x 28Battalions/Corps = 84Battalions
• 10miles = 16km -> 84Battalions/16km = 5.25 Bat per km

...but the 10mile or 16km frontline is wrong due to geometry, read on.

BRIGADE
A Rifle Brigade ('43) has

• 144 Rifle Squads.
• /4Squads = 36Platoons
• /3Platoons = 12 Companies
• /3Companies = 4 Battalions

....so one Brigade has 4 Battalions.

3 Brigades per 3 Corps in one Hex means:

• 3Corps x 3Brigades/Corps x 4 Battalions/Brigade = 36Battalions
• 10 miles = 16km -> 36Battalions/16km = 2.25 Bat per km

...but the 10mile or 16km frontline is wrong due to geometry, read on.

So taking this this would mean we could achieve 5.25+2.25=7.5 Battalions per km, this is realistic at first sight when taking the numbers noted in this Chart.

Bagration_density.png (162.34 KiB) Viewed 1362 times

---

But a Hex is a Hexagon and not a Square!
So we do not have 16km frontline between Hexes, but 9.292km (see image).

frontline.png (32.04 KiB) Viewed 1362 times

So ingame we actually have
(84Bat+36Bat)/9.292km=12.9 Bat per km !!!
So essentially 7.6/12.9=1.697 -> ~1.7 -> 70% higher density in Battalions than (one of the highest(?)) historical densities for Bagration.

I guess there are several approachable Solutions to this.

• Easiest way would be to reduce the max attachable SUs to a Corps to 1.
• Reducting SU limit of Corpses to 0 the three Corpses would still exceed the "historical density per km" mark, but this may have too huge of an effect on current game balance and would eliminate the assignment of smaller SUs (altough not often used anyways).
• Making Brigade "X"-sized SUs non attachable to Corpses.
• ...

[Gray Lensman_MatrixForum]

Hexes are commonly used to more evenly regulate movement compared to squares, however the frontage they present is more complicated than just taking one hes side.

The map combat frontage hexes actually represent is the distance measured from one side to the opposite side and is easily observed when multiple hexes are lined up adjacent to each other instead of looking at and analyzing one hex in isolation.

edit>

So, using your calculation
(84Bat+36Bat)/18.584km=6.45 Bat per km... NOT 12.9 Bat per km as per your example
So essentially 6.45/7.6 = .849 meaning your example Bat per km is actually .85 the density for Bagration ( or 15% less than the density for Bagration)

[Wiedrock]

Hexes are commonly used to more evenly regulate movement compared to squares, however the frontage they present is more complicated than just taking one hes side.

The map combat frontage hexes actually represent is the distance measured from one side to the opposite side and is easily observed when multiple hexes are lined up adjacent to each other instead of looking at and analyzing one hex in isolation.

edit>

So, using your calculation
(84Bat+36Bat)/18.584km=6.45 Bat per km... NOT 12.9 Bat per km as per your example
So essentially 6.45/7.6 = .849 meaning your example Bat per km is actually .85 the density for Bagration ( or 15% less than the density for Bagration)

I don't see the reason to take the long diagonal for this context. As you said it' a Hex and not a Square.

1. First of all you need to defend the perimeter between the enemy and you and not some imaginary line in the middle of your ranks.
2. Second, going from Square to Hex makes 2 axes with 4 sides to 3 axes with 6 sides.Taking your explanation would make a 3-sided attack (NW/W/SW) (so 3 out of 6 sides) a 56km frontline, which already is the whole surrounding frontline of a 10mile hexagonal Perimeter.
3. Third, such three sided attack therefore would needed to be shortened by the overlapping parts of the frontline. So you'd either end up with d=18.6km or 2xR=18.6km or 2xr=16km (10miles).
4. Fourth, imagine attacking a Hex from East and West simultaneously. Frontline?

[Gray Lensman_MatrixForum]

You're projecting that the actual "real world" military front lines "at scale" represented in the game run along a distinctly hexagonal border in order that your flawed front line density calculations make sense.

edit> There are some game scales, generally very small, where your argument might have some merit, which is where the analytical information that you are presenting seems to be coming from. As such, you are applying the argument to the wrong scale game.

[Wiedrock]

You're projecting that the actual "real world" military front lines "at scale" represented in the game run along a distinctly hexagonal border in order that your flawed front line density calculations make sense.

edit> There are some game scales, generally very small, where your argument might have some merit, which is where the analytical information that you are presenting seems to be coming from. As such, you are applying the argument to the wrong scale game.

My assumption is that a Developer making a game with such detail, making the actual shape of the "normally known" 2D map changed to represent real world distances and the shape of the earth would not end up making strange decisions when it comes to the density of frontline units.

I wish you'd have given some deeper insights on how you'd explain a multisided attack density or any other length of a frontline.

6 sided attack means 6x(84Bat+36Bat)/18.584km=38,74Bat/km?
3 Divisions in a single Hex pocket with a perimeter of 56km are defending 18.584km?
Or is a 6 sided attack a 6x18.584km=111.5km frontline?

After all at one point a Dev must create rules about stacking units in a Hex and assigning SUs, I can't imagine they (2by3) forgot about multi-sided battles during this step. Therefore I assume it's just a issue of too many too big SUs being able to be attached to the Rifle Corps. After all the frontline density isn't the only issue related to this "pairing". It's also that this combination is contrary to the stacking penalty rules which exist already to represent some kind of diminishing returns.
Here a small excerpt to this, that more doesn't always mean more success, which supposedly is well moddeled in the game due to the stacking penalties rules, but those as stated are canceled to a large degree by being able to attach the Brigade sized SUs to every Unit in every Hex which by their own should also add a force value of 5 (if they were no SUs).

GERvsSOV_ratios.png (53.56 KiB) Viewed 1198 times

Stacking penalties

The size of the attacking force will also impact the number of shots taken in
combat. This fire penalty occurs in combats where there is a large number of
attacking units. The force value of the attacking side is calculated using the following
values for each non-support, non-artillery division unit attacking:
• Corps 15
• Division 9
• Brigade 5 (3 if the brigade has less than 2,000 men)
• Regiment 3
Once the force value exceeds 28 there is a chance that elements will not get to fire
during combat. Artillery elements are much less affected (and this rule only affects
them at closer ranges in combat), and the chance that elements will not fire
increases as the force value increases. In general though, adding more units should
result in more elements firing, but a lower percentage of the total elements will
generally be firing as the force increases. The CV values of the attacking units are
not changed by this rule.

So what 1 Hex has is 45 force value 3Corps -> 3x15=45.
The 9 SUs meanhwile would have an additional 45 force value by their own -> 9x5=45.

[Gray Lensman_MatrixForum]

You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, and in this case, I'm pretty sure the designers will see the fallacy of your argument, so we'll leave it at that and you can can continue to "chase your rainbows".

edit> there's a lot of arguable flaws with this game but this isn't one of them.

[Wiedrock]

You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, and in this case, I'm pretty sure the designers will see the fallacy of your argument, so we'll leave it at that and you can can continue to "chase your rainbows".

edit> there's a lot of arguable flaws with this game but this isn't one of them.

I suggest trying StB as Germans in PvP.

[Rexzapper]

Wiedrock, a very interesting table (GERvsSOV_ratios.png) about force ratios in the 1943 Kharkov and Kursk battles. What book is it from?

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I don't think that the discussion above suggests any problem with how the game is at the moment? At least in terms of adding brigades as SUs

If we assume that 1 corps = 3 divisions and 1 div = 2 brigades then a maxed out 3 Corps with 3 Bdes would be equivalent to around 12 divisions. If the German hex contains 2 divisions this would be a 6:1 force ratio.

IMHO the discussion about hex length and attacking from multiple sides is a bit of a red-herring. The force ratios in Wiedrocks first extract are per km. In reality as in the game where there are salients in the front line an attacker might choose to attack a unit from two sides rather than having each section of the line attack the section directly opposite. In that situation the force ratios would be much larger than the per km figure.

Whether the combat engine overly favors quantity is a different question. If it does, that is a combat engine problem, not a rules/realism problem with adding brigades as SUs.

[DekeFentle]

I don't think that the discussion above suggests any problem with how the game is at the moment? At least in terms of adding brigades as SUs

If we assume that 1 corps = 3 divisions and 1 div = 2 brigades then a maxed out 3 Corps with 3 Bdes would be equivalent to around 12 divisions. If the German hex contains 2 divisions this would be a 6:1 force ratio.

IMHO the discussion about hex length and attacking from multiple sides is a bit of a red-herring. The force ratios in Wiedrocks first extract are per km. In reality as in the game where there are salients in the front line an attacker might choose to attack a unit from two sides rather than having each section of the line attack the section directly opposite. In that situation the force ratios would be much larger than the per km figure.

Whether the combat engine overly favors quantity is a different question. If it does, that is a combat engine problem, not a rules/realism problem with adding brigades as SUs.

+1

[Rexzapper]

Whether the combat engine overly favors quantity is a different question. If it does, that is a combat engine problem, not a rules/realism problem with adding brigades as SUs.

But if the problem is that the combat engine overly favors quantity over quality, removing some quantity (limiting the addition of brigades as SUs) could be part of a (at least partial) solution.