[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: [WarInEur] Effective rebuilds...

Subject: Re: Re: [WarInEur] Effective rebuilds...
From: Daniel and Joy Jagelman
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:34:24 +1000
Yeah Jim I agree with you there.

In France the equipment & manpower levels between the two sides seems to have 
been either even or favourable to the Allies.

The differences, which were vast, were in the leadership, doctrine and 
communications - or command and control as you said.

WIE has created intricatel unit variations to try to emulate outcomes based 
upon the 
above said differences, seeing as they could not emulate bad leadership and 

Or could they....?

> [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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. 
> 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.
> Might be an idea to allow all majors to improve over time keeping them  
> basically equivelant.
> Jim

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]

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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>