Question @ Glenn Saunders

[Strela]

Glenn,

I am in the middle of playtesting some scenarios (Korsun '44). Currently it is almost a requirement that the German hold large parts of his front with companies due to both the terrain and lack of infantry. This is obvously increasing the morale accrued when fired on due to the organisational size morale rules. Essentially it forces the German to either reduce his frontage quickly or regroup as much as possible back into battalions .

Has there been any though to providing an optional morale rule where all units are treated as battalion equivalents ? The player with companies would still be punished based upon the manpower in the smaller units, but not have his morale burned out in a turn or two.

Thanks,

David

[Ricky B]

Hi David,

Pending Glenn answering, there is the new "quality fatigue modifier" which causes higher quality company sized units to take less fatigue - along the lines of battalion fatigue - than lower quality companies. I couldn't say off the top of my head whether Korsun has this rule added in, but I would think by now it is likely. It would show under optional rules if it is in there.

Rick

[Strela]

Hi Ricky B,

Yes- fully aware of the quality fatigue modifier. Essentially if used this has the impact of classing a company as the equivalent of 2 companies as long as the morale is 'B' or better.

I did the Volcano Man Korsun_Alt scenarios and doing some extensive play testing for V2. The challenge we are finding is that the German's are losing too many units too quickly mainly due to fatigue picked up in bombardments and russian attacks. Currently all the German infantry is all C grade and would have to be B grade to get any benefit from the quality modifier.

Additionally though I have set up the orgs historically, Russian T34 battalions 0f 10 tanks have significantly more staying power than Stug companies with 10 vehicles. My only choice is to now to possibly move Stugs and other armor into a battallion structure. Not ideal.

My main issue though is the infantry in companies, as they just can not emulate what happened historically in this battle which was a company based defence for the Germans.

[Indragnir]

I've the same problem with Normandy, tanks batts cannot be splitted into companies or being broken in 1 turn. Infantry company units take so much fatigue than after 1-2 turns they break.

Mmm same for modern campaigns (still struggling awith my Yom Kippur mod..).

I'm even thinking about splitting all units (defender side) and change them to batt size (OOB I mean)... only to find out they cannot ever be combined again... (if they started the game combined they could remain combined, once splitted, never came back).

BTW KG type units takes less fatigue than TF type units.

I would give my left arm for an optional rule (or so) that let attach any kind of unit to a division/brigade/KG/TF organization.

[Glenn Saunders]

There is no plans to make changes to the rules on this. I fully understand the situations you are discribing - it is exactly the one I faced when I was working on Minsk - Outnumbers Germans needing to be in Coys to hold the line. All we could get the new rule.

Basically - if Coys had no BF penalty than not only would there be no need for combining, it would be dumb to combine because there would be an advantage be subdivided.

All you can do is make all your COYS to be Btln units in the OOB, using the extra level in the chain with Bridages and Regiments, and have no combining. Unit density will be higher, but as I said before, if there was no Fatigue difference than it would be a dumb idea for players to combine anyway.

Glenn

[Indragnir]

You're right Glenn.

The only way is acepting no more combining and make them bats on the OOB.

[Bushido]

Strela,

I am playing sce. from both sides. As it stands now it is much better than stock sce. But it is still an uphill struggle for the russian side. I must work hard to make a pocket. I do think it is possibel but not after historical time schedule. Also please look at the overall picture: the Stukas hammer the T-34 units. When the russian inf. mass it get hammered from the Carpet bombing.

So what I say be careful not make it tuffer for the russian side :-)

[Volcano Man]

Adding to what Glenn said, here are two choices:

1) Change the actual organization size of the infantry companies on the front line to battalion (but this will also mean that they cannot combine as such)

2) Upgrade the German defenses along the front line. There is always a gray area between bunkers / BUNKERS and TRENCHES. In most defense situations bunkers / BUNKERS did historically exists, so it becomes a sort of tool for balance in PzC since they could, theoretically, have existed all along the front lines.

-------------

I agree with Bushido though. If the Germans are having a hard time stopping the Russians on the font line then this is probably desired. If they can break through at a faster rate on the outer defenses then you have to look at what they can do to form the pocket itself. If it tends to be difficult to form the pocket (or time consuming) then chances are that it balances out in the big picture. So I would be very cautious here...

[Glenn Saunders]

Adding to what Glenn said, here are two choices:

1) Change the actual organization size of the infantry companies on the front line to battalion (but this will also mean that they cannot combine as such)

...going a little further with this - it means Btln will be Regiments
Regiments will be Brigades but by this level things will equal out so Divisions will be Divisions.

Also - I actually did this in Minsk with a number of StuG units. It started when there was less than a full Btln of StuG, but even when there was a full Btln, these units did fight as COYs and I did not want them to suffer the Coy BF penalty as this is how teh units we used. I don't have Minsk installed here at work so I can't give you an example, but I am sure they will be easy to spot.

Glenn

[Strela]

Thanks Glenn and VM,

Now that I know it is not a possibility I will try a few other approaches (as suggested above).

I will probably do exactly what you did with STuG's Glenn and make them battalions. For the infantry etc I want to get a bit further into the playtest and see what their longevity is like. I definitely won't be redoing the OOB nd moving everything up a level....

We have actually utilised a few bunkers etc facing 2nd Ukraine and that is helping a little so we will try a few more tweaks...

David