WSF wish list

[Krak]

Brian

I see where you are coming from. But what if a unit was worn down to 50% strength and 50% Effectiveness. Say I move it back to the rear for R&R. I add enough replacments to take it up to 80% of Strength. This in turn will now reduce the units Effectiveness down to 30%. So now the unit will recover on average 1% Effectiveness per turn, each turn being 2 days. So I will have to keep resting the unit while it recovers. If I wait 50 turns I will recover 50% Effectiveness. I will then have a unit at 80% Strength and 80% Effectiveness. Then 'Back to the front boys!'.

So in this example it has taken 50 turns=100 days for a unit to go from 50% Effectiveness and Strength to 80% Effectiveness and Strength.

My question then is does this sound reasonable, for a net increase of 30% in both areas?

If we look at Barbarossa. The Germans attacked from June 22 to early Sept in AGC IIRC. They then halted. I suspect one (of many perhaps)reason may have been because the Panzers needed some R&R. Not an unreasonable proposition to assume they were down to 50% Strength and Effectiveness. They resumed attacking again in October (some never stopped and were diverted to Kiev). Again saying they might have refitted back to 80% Strength and 80% Effectiveness might not seem unreasonable. Yet their rest period was well short of 100 days, and this at the end of a tenuous supply line after some very protracted and prolonged campaigning in very harsh conditions.

I am sure there are many other examples where combat units that were worn down to that 50% mark were back in action within 3 weeks. Not over 3 months. Taking over 3 months to get back to a condition of 80% is an erroneous situation IMO.

Whatever value you put on it, whether 75% or 90% Effectiveness, I say it takes too long to get there. A unit can be worn down to 50% in 2 or 3 turns in TWIE. To say they will then have to wait 50 turns before coming back to just 80% is way too long IMO.

I understand your view Brian. But can you give me what you would think is a reasonable rest period to go from 50% to 80%, assuming replacements are available.

Thanks for your comments and interest. I appreciate it.

[Dog Soldier]

I would leave the time the designers have alone. Mybe the idea was discussed, during the game design to make unit effectiveness a non linear function. I could envision that some unit effectiveness is attributed to battle fatigue, no hot meals, even a shave and cold water bath can restore some of the unit's issues. Thus, a short period of rest and reorganization, resupply would have greater benefits. Then, after this initial period, gains in effectiveness are harder to come by since more needs to be done to weld a team back to together from a bunch of individuals. (For you veterans out there, I am exaggerating this to make a point.)
I can see changing the time it takes to restore unit effectiveness if some of our members who actually served in combat somewhere in the world can give us the benefit of their experiences. Or if someone who really has studied this can cite some WW2 references to support quicker times.

This period of time is more about reorganization and integration of new replacements, if given such, than about just resting in the rear. Much training, repair, maintenance of equipment, logistics, must occur. Units do not regain effectiveness just by catching up on sleep. Even if a depleted unit does not receive any significant replacements, plans have to be made, communicated and sub units trained to overcome the manpower shortages. One would not want to lead a division back into the crucible of battle just to find out certain duties are no longer being performed that are crucial to the unit because of the lack of someone to do it.

In the North Africa theater, I would think the logistics would be an issue. I recall reading that the British once had many new tanks delivered during one of these lulls in the fighting. The tanks were useless because of some missing part(s) or insufficient crews or some darn reason. It took over a month to correct this one problem. Convoys from England and other parts of the empire did not arrive every day.

I would say there is a host of these types of issues. I am reading between the line here as I was not involved in the design of TWiE or WotSF. It is more than just saying speed up the math.

That is what I would do. But this is your mod.

Dog Soldier

[Liebchen]

I think effectiveness is a function of more than just time. One aspect being modeled by effectiveness is the condition of the unit officers.

Wouldn't you say that another aspect of effectiveness is organization? Units in prolonged combat get disorganized, sort of like the fatigue in the PzC games.

[von Schwarze]

>>>If we look at Barbarossa. The Germans attacked from June 22 to early Sept in AGC IIRC. They then halted. I suspect one (of many perhaps)reason may have been because the Panzers needed some R&R. Not an unreasonable proposition to assume they were down to 50% Strength and Effectiveness. They resumed attacking again in October (some never stopped and were diverted to Kiev). Again saying they might have refitted back to 80% Strength and 80% Effectiveness might not seem unreasonable. Yet their rest period was well short of 100 days, and this at the end of a tenuous supply line after some very protracted and prolonged campaigning in very harsh conditions.<<<

I think using Barbarossa as an example is stretching the facts a little. Bear in mind at this time the German Army was unstoppable, they wanted to go on when they were stopped for R & R. I would like to see some real numbers, but to make assumptions that you make of 50/50 is not really acceptable. I do not think they had anything like these numbers, but I could be wrong. Also, altho they had a long supply line, they had good replacements and material, not the old men and boys from the late war years.

Another contentious point is your last sentence. I am sure most members would not really call the initial part of Barbarossa a "protracted and prolonged campaign in very harsh conditions", look at the documentaries of smiling marching Germans. Indeed, if they had so much success in a CG on the ladder they would be overjoyed, I do not think this is a valid example.

However, overall, I do think you have a point and you are aware of my thoughts thru the emails from Glenn.

[Krak]

Gee I don't know Dave. I have read some accounts from German Officers that claimed that after the end of the Smolensk battles the Panzers were in a pretty poor state and that they needed a fair degree of repair and maintenance. That Russia was dirt tracks at best unlike the nice paved roads in France. And then there was the summer heat and dust. They claimed tank numbers were down to 60-70% or worse.

I have also read accounts that claim that they should not have stopped and kept on going to Moscow.

However I am trying to use that example to highlight that they did not stop for 3 months. Because if we set up a Barby CG with TWIE as it stands now (with a 1% UERR) I think the attack would grind to a halt well before Smolensk and the Germans would be resting for a few months before resuming and by then the hordes of Russians would be well set. Germany would do well to capture Smolensk, forget Moscow.

I guess trying to gauge a broad figure of Unit Effectiveness across an army is always going to be subjective and nothing more than an educated guess anyway.

We have facts and figures on unit strengths but not unit readiness.