[WarInEur] Changing unit strength.
Noel & Pamela
emu at fwi.net.au
Sat Jan 5 19:55:25 EST 2008
All,
An interesting discussion on this topic is below.
Jean-Marc and I would like to see something incorporated in this option to
distinguish Cwlth forces from the 'colonies', if that were possible..
regards,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Marc Charbin [mailto:jean-marc60 at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 3:12 AM
To: Noel & Pamela
Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Changing unit strength.
Greetings Noel,
Are you still planning on making the changes that I had originally
suggested for the Allied changing unit strengths option? I explained this
earlier (see below). You said it all seemed fine...
Sadly, CWiE II so far does not have a unit editor like the good old
DOS version. Otherwise I would of fixed this and playtested it myself to see
the results. As mentioned earlier this would make a far better
representation of the UK/CW forces in CWiEII.
What other changes or options are currently being considered for CWiE
II? Thank you very much and I shall be looking foward to hearing back from
you. J.M.
Noel & Pamela <emu at fwi.net.au> wrote:
Jean-Marc,
I'd leave them the same - I think it would be too hard to work out the
differences, and to keep track of the particular Units. I expect that the
difference would amount to no more than 1 factor, on my reasoning defence,
in any case.
I think you can have separate att/def factors in the computer game - not so
easy in print.
Are you going to send this discussion to the list?
regards,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Marc Charbin [mailto:jean-marc60 at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 7:12 AM
To: Noel & Pamela
Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Changing unit strength.
Greetings Noel,
Great, glad to hear that you liked my suggestion for new UK changing
unit strengths. It would be excellent to see this change made for this
option. The figures that I suggested I think would fit quite nicely. Even
when using the option in its current form a 1940 UK infantry division has
the same combat factor as German infantry division. Historically we all know
that this was not the case...
The reason I do not add a defense number is that only Turkish, Swiss
and German static divisions have them. Since so few units have defense
numbers in CWiE that I just dont think its a good idea to add them unless
you were to allow some of the other units in the game to have a defense
number as well. After all, why should only CW units have a seperate defense
number? The only units that should have the defense number are artillery
units.
I suppose that the Commonwealth forces such as the Canadians,
Australians, New Zealand, South African and Indian divisions are to have the
same combat factors as UK troops? What are your thoughts on this? You
mentioned some of the differences between these forces, but you really did
not say if you think that their values should be the same? Talk to you soon.
Thanks J.M.
Noel & Pamela <emu at fwi.net.au> wrote:
Jean-Marc,
All this seems fine. Having the attack and defence numbers the same is of
course only necessary with printed counters - with a computer game it is not
necessary and I don't think we should go out of our way to keep them the
same in this context.
I agree that the UK forces were pretty poor until after 1941. And lucky to
be 8-10's in the game at all if you ask me.
Sea lion should be a threat. The UK was effectively defenceless for about 6
months in 1940.
As for the Commonwealth forces, whilst I am Australian, I think that our
troops were pretty poorly trained and equipped as well. And the leadership
wasn't good - mainly because we had to suffer with the rotten, class ridden
British officer Corps. Churchill did not trust us Aussies - and rightly so
- we thought he was a murderer (Gallipoli in WW I caused that). The Aussie
forces acquitted themselves very well on the defence in North Africa (Tobruk
for example) - and on the defence and offence in the Jungle in Papua
(Kokoda). But these were limited operations. Generally I think the Cwlth
forces were better fed, fitter and better led at the platoon and battalion
levels (at least). But having British Generals did not help. Mind you, one
of them was pretty praiseworthy of them in the Desert I recall.
The Indians didn't have much of a chance at all as the British totally
distrusted them.
The Canadians were used as cannon fodder it seems to me (Dieppe).
regards,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Marc Charbin [mailto:jean-marc60 at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:55 AM
To: Noel & Pamela
Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Changing unit strength.
Greetings Noel,
Let me begin by saying that a 1939-43 UK division should not be an
8-10. I agree with the changing unit strength rule. You might want to
consider in a game that lasts 296 turns from 9/3/39 to 5/2/45 the Allies and
Soviets only get to use CRT #1 for 22 turns. Also, using CRT #2 & CRT #3 at
5-1 odds or less the two tables are the same The use of CRT's to simulate
how armies got better or worse as the war progressed really does not seem to
work very well. This is why I think that the changing unit strength option
is a step in the right direction and simulates this much better.
I would propose making the UK infantry units 4-10's with a 1-10BG in
1939-40. UK armor units would become 5-8's with a 1-8BG.This would make them
slightly better than then French and not as good as the Germans. UK forces
during this time period were poorly trained, ill equipped and had mediocre
leadership. Brigades would be 1-10 INF and 1-8 Armor. In 1941 I would raise
it to a 5-10 infantry and a 6-8 armor. 1942 would be a 6-10 infantry and a
7-8 armor. Brigades would become 2-10 inf and 2-8 armor. 1943 would be a
7-10 infantry and a 8-8 armor. 1944-45 would be an 8-10 infantry and a 9-8
armor. Brigades would become 3-10's and 3-8's. USA, Free French forces and
UK parachute divisions would not be affected by this option. Since most
units in the game use two digits I chose not to use a seperate number for
defense. The only problems that I could see from using Allied changing
strength option is that now an "Operation Sealion" becomes a very real
threat. Especially if UK infantry divisions are only 4-10's in 1940.
Do you think that Commonwealth troops from Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, India and South Africa should have the same combat values as
regular UK units? If no, then what unit strengths would you give them?
What do you think of all this? Sincerely, Jean-Marc
Noel & Pamela <emu at fwi.net.au> wrote:
All,
Might I make one observation on the changing unit strength.
I completely agree that there should be this option, but the Attack and
Defences are the same in the option as currently implemented I suggest
that the British divisions are still too strong to early on the OFFENCE.
I suggest that they be 3-5-10's initially and progress like this:
1939 3-5
1940 4-6
1941(1-4) 4-7
1941(5-8) 5-7
1941(9-13)7-7
1942 8-8
[I am happy to tweak these transition points to more closely match
equipment/doctrinal changes if required.]
regards,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net
[mailto:warineur-bounces at mailmanhalisp.net] On Behalf Of Chuck Sutherland
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:20 AM
To: Peter Turkaly
Cc: 'Hansen'; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Changing unit strength.
To some extent yes! However I don't believe it has been an effective way
to model the tactical advantages each side had at times. The CRT shift
also stops a Bulge type setup and even at CRT two your attacks are very
ineffective unless you have massive amounts of arty to use and then the
defender simply backs up a hex.
Peter Turkaly wrote:
> ">Battle tested units, are better but its the tactics that are applied
> during the learning in battle that makes the difference in my book.
> Thus a green late war allied unit should be worth more then a early
> war green unit and perhaps even equal to a early war veteran unit! So
> a straight unit strength shift based on combat isn't totally accurate,
> also non BG units would have very little chance to gain strength since
> elimination happens alot!"
>
> Isn't this reflected by the change in CRTs?
>
>
--
Chuck Sutherland
Technology Specialist
Gamewood, Inc.
116 South Ridge Street
Danville, VA 24541
(434) 799-8407 x218
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080106/feb82501/attachment-0001.html
More information about the WarInEur
mailing list