Pareameter Data Unit Recovery levels Minsk 44

[Landser34]

I my opinion the Unit Recovery rates are Skewed to the Germans just like in the Kursk game with Germans units have a 6% unit recovery per turn and The Russians only 2% no who thinks this is right by 1944 once a German Soldier was made food for the worms there was no replacement for them

[JonS1]

Well, cas inflicted aren't just KIAs - they are everything from outright KIA through various WIA levels right through to those who "temporarily absent themselves from the battlefield". As such, the Unit Recovery Rate models the ability of armies to, well, recover unit strengths. In the short term I see it as mostly modelling the ability to round up stragglers, and the quality and ability of low-level medical services to turn around sick and lightly wounded soldiers and get them back in the fight. It also models the organisational ability to recover and repair damaged equipment (esp guns and tanks in the case of PzC).

Whether any particular level is appropriate for any given army on any given day or month is akin to arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. In a general sense though, 6% is way too high for anyone's army, IMO. Over the course of a (10-turn) day that totals up to a LOT of replacements.

On the other hand, discussions about whether one army's recovery rate should be three times the others is a slightly different discussion. It could be argued that the German medical and repair organisations were better organised and equipped than those of the Russians, but three times ... ?

The good news is that PDTs are easy enough to edit :)

I've expanded my thoughts on this general topic a little more here, under the heading of "Non-Combat-Loss-Rates (NCLR)"

[Landser34]

Jon I have to disagree in late 44 If the Russians lost a tank they had 10 tanks sitting at the Factories or on the way to be shipped to the front,I dont have the exact figures but i can find it in one of my books .I think in 44 and 45 the Russians built in that time frame more tanks than the Germans did during the whole war so i think there replacement rate would be better than a measly 2% I know the Germans may have had a better tank recovery operation but not at 6 percent rate and as far as infantry casualties i agree not all are KIA's but even the ones that are wounded except for the very lightly wounded dont end up fighting within the next couple of days and as fast as the Russians overran the Germans During Bagration once a German Soldier was lost there was not a replacement for him the only thing that stopped the Soviets from ending the war in the Summer of 44 is that they outran there logistical supplies to keep offense going it wasn't any thing that the Germans really did to stop the offensive it wiped off the board 3 German armies and brought the Russians to the Vistula and the Borders of East Prussia

[Glenn Saunders]

[Glenn Saunders]

[Elxaime]

The recovery rate game mechanic, IMHO, should be judged on a game-by-game basis to determine whether it is helping create historical conditions for the player decision makers.

I think the recovery rates in M44 work well, since the designers need to model the historic ability of the greatly outnumbered Germans to resist Operation Bagration and also the imperative of the Soviets to keep attacking once the order by Stalin was given.

I have only played M44 as Soviets, and only to about turn 30 so far, but in the back of my mind as I play is the fact that I cannot afford to slow the attack. If a pause occurs anywhere along the front, the superior quality (for the most part) of the Germans and their higher recovery rate will make a renewed offensive all that harder. As a result, the game itself is much tenser - the Soviets simply have to keep moving and not let the Germans catch their breath.

I would use K43 as an example of where the recovery rates, in the stock scenario, have the opposite effect. The Germans have such high rates compared to the Soviets in K43 that, even if they don't adopt ahistoric lines of advances to take advantage of known fixed Soviet units and thin defense lines (which leads to an early and easy win), a good German player also can simply win a head on battle of attrition through his recovery rate advantage. This makes no sense in the context of July 1943 at Kursk - the Germans knew they had to breakthrough quickly since, if they got bogged down, the Soviets would win an attritional battle of men and material.

These rates can be adjusted if players wish. But my vote so far is that M44 seems about right.

[JonS1]

[Elxaime]

Ideally, the recovery system should be broken down to allow game designers to set parameters for specific branches (e.g. infantry, artillery, armor) and also particular unit types (e.g. T-34 units, Panthers).

That way, a designer creating a N44 campaign scenario could account for the fact that British commanders were leery of frontal infantry assaults because of the low UK manpower availability. You could model this by giving some British infantry divisions lower recover rates. Likewise, the Sherman tank equipped Allied armored units had plentiful replacements, which often meant repairs were not even needed to get a unit back to strength - new vehicles could and often were provided on the spot in lieu of waiting for repairs. Similarly, higher or lower recovery rates could reflect the mechanical ruggedness or bugginess of certain vehicles (e.g. standard T34 could have higher recovery rates, Tiger II lower due to its teething problems). There is already a low reliability value that can be assigned to a mechanized unit, but AFAIK it affects breakdowns not recovery (repair/reorganization/replenishment) rates.

[JonS1]

There is already a low reliability value that can be assigned to a mechanized unit, but AFAIK it affects breakdowns not recovery (repair/reorganization/replenishment) rates.

A designer can se the two values to create a sort of dynamic tension, but it is tricky and can easily create unexpected problems.