[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [WarInEur] Effective rebuilds...

Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Effective rebuilds...
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:47:22 EDT
In a message dated 06/10/2004 22:05:21 GMT Daylight Time, JamesAForestJr writes:
In a message dated 10/6/2004 1:50:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I'm not sure that I understand exactly to what part of the preceding message
you are saying 'yes' but if it is the 6-5 strength for a Guards corps then
I'm not sure I agree.
The problem is really one of establishing the effective baseline for the russian unit. Does it start from a 1-4 a 4-4 or even something else? And how much leverage to apply to  it given an experience effect and a full toe.
Perhaps what we might be looking at is a 3-4-4 as the base unit, in place of the 4-4. Guards status with augmented full strength as a 4-5-4 and a rebuilt "battle hardened " division as a 5-5.
An interesting point to make to my mind is that there need not be a "cost" to training in terms of production (other than taking up space on the tracks). For example the 3-4-4 would cost to get to 4-5-4, but the upgrde to 5-5 is largely one of gaining experience and skills and might be better represented as time out on the track for a notional cost (or even none) merely several cycles whilst acquiring the necessary training?
The issue then is whether you can afford the time and lack of the unit on the frontline, rather than any intrinsic costs applied to the unit. A sort of strategic reserve unit functioning such as those held back during the early stages of the Stalingrad Fight....

My limited understanding of the Guards units is that earlier in the war they
were units which had performed well and then after receiving Guards
designation were subsequently maintained at equipment and manpower levels
closer to TOE and sometimes with additional mortars and other weapons above
the TOE of normal units.  Also I understand that later in the war the actual
difference between Guards units vs other units diminished, in part because
all units received increasing levels of equipment and manpower problems
existed across the board.

In game terms, I do not see a big difference between changing existing 4-4
units to 5-5 while continuing to build 4-4s as opposed to beginning to build
mostly 5-5 units as the net effect is the same.  If my late war
understanding is correct, then eventually building all 5-5s is not off the
mark.  Also I believe that actual personnel for most infantry divisions even
very late in the war ran about 1/2 strength and both Soviet and German
forces improved from an equipment standpoint so I'm not sure how an increase
to 6-5 strength is justified.

Just wondering?
I am not sure why you would do any of those things either but it is an interesting arguement.
When I recently did some reading about the Battle for France I found that the units equipment and manpower for the French and German's was equivelent.  The major differences appeared to be the use of the equipment and command control. The only major difference I discovered was the Axis had 1/3 more air then the Allies. 
This lead me to design the French with an attack equivelant to the Axis but both the movement and defense to be lowered.  I, therefore, made the French TO&E Infantry 6-3-1 and armor 9-4-6.
I went another way with this problem feeding the French some artillery over time to boost combat effeciency.My take on this was to boost the offensive capability, but leave some tactical inflexibility to express some of the recurrent shortcomings in the French command system. This has a similar effect with regard to firepower at the main point of contact, but leaves you somewhat "messy" in your ability to rapidly exploit and change threat axes.
We have tested this only once and it worked fine but it will need many more tests to see if it really works.
The idea of continually upgrading is not a bad one though. Obvoiusly the German troops were no less trained or equipped then the Allies so why the 8-10 vs 6-5.  The movement is okay given the availability of transport but the attack strength should be the same.  Using the option that moves the Allies up is fine but what about the Axis.  They were still equivelent other then movement. 
I suspect that the 8-10 classification is to offset the somewhat brittle OB...make them resilient and difficult to damage, and this will mean that we don't have to redesign the counter set to take care of lots of upgrade and intermediate units, and we will rely upon the CRT to take the edge off these units for 1940.
I suspect with the existing setups, perhaps the 8-10's should arrive in France as 2-3-6s and upgrade to 3-4-7s for 1940 and 4-5-8s for 1941, 5-6-9 in 1942, getting a double point rise in 1943  and movement capability up to 10 to represent the better armour and equipment being imported from the US from late 1942. The British divisions still appear to be way too effective for 1940 to my mind...both in combat structure and operational freedom of manoeuvre. Artillery should be the backing force for the British to  provide additional combat modifiers. As Alamein might demonstrate...the mastery of the set piece battle rather than the German concept of firepower off the hoof (as it were).
Why should the Axis not be able to go 7-5 and then 8-5?  The odds table already control the combat but the strength does not also need to be based on it.
With a lower allied combat factor in 1942 and 1943, maybe the perceived imbalance in German firpower scores is not so obvious.
Might be an idea to allow all majors to improve over time keeping them basically equivelant.
An attractive concept
-|steve|-(experimenting with colour)

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
WarInEur mailing list
[email protected]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>