[WarInEur] Barbarossa under options

[SGMINFO at aol.com]

In a message dated 18/07/2008 20:34:57 Atlantic Daylight Time,  
bcla3003 at iprimus.com.au writes:

Without knowing the  detail of the proposed fatigue rules, would this still 
allow a player to  combine heavily fatigued units into a non fatigued full 
strength  unit?


 
 
excellent question...
 
The 'logical' answer is this.
 
The act of 'unflipping a unit will itself contribute 'fatigue',
in our case the same way as expenditure of a replacement point.
 
 
The  'basis' for such a position would be this.
 
Fatigued/attritioned units represent units suffering from shortages of  
working equipment/in repair and maintained, up to strength manpower tables and  
other key parts of the ob in terms of organisation and integrated  effectiveness.
 
combining units does not 'directly' solve many of these issues  overnight.
 
i.e. a Panzer division does not reconstitute its effectiveness by rolling  
the remnants of 3 Panzer divisions into 1. the kgs become 1 full strength unit,  
the 2-8s become 1 x 10-8, but not magically at full effectiveness. Rather the 
 10-8 has the ability to continue to refit into full effectiveness, which the 
kgs  do not, without the intervention of a replacement point.
 
I am very wary of 'instant fix' solutions....
 
Von richtofen did something analagous with the airfleet deployed for the  
counterstroke at Kharkov Stripping partial strength units to bring other  
frontline units up to strength, and sending the stripped units back to the  airparks 
to draw new equipment and personnel.
 
But such things operate very differently in air units, where there is a  much 
greater accent in individual performance in the combat role. With ground  
units much of the effectiveness is in combined arms training and inherent  
imbibed teamwork, which takes time to engender, familiarity and mutual training  
being a key issue/element.
 
In terms of he sophistication of the model...at this stage it does not  carry 
that degree of depth and fine tuning. At our level of operations such a  
degree of detail may not be required...
 
It also engenders other conundrums to solve...
 
2-8 at 40% effectiveness, 2-8 at 10% effectiveness, and a 2-8 at 80%  
effectiveness.
 
Do were aggregate and average? Do we pick the best? or do we pick the  worst?
 
One could argue that we cream the best of the knowhow and training, but  does 
experience in the field demonstrate this to be the case?
 
I would suggest that views upon this  would be extremely  valuable  , before 
we go too far down this road
 
 
-|steve|-



   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080718/93a19174/attachment-0001.html