In the recent play-test mini-campaign I ran, I factored the equipment used by a formation into its total Strength Points. For example:
- 1st Infantry Division:
- General von Tarlenheim (Average; 6 SPs)
- 1st Divisional HQ (Average; 2 SPs)
- 1st Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
- 2nd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
- 3rd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
- 1st Artillery Regiment (Average; 2 SPs + 2 SPs)
- 1st Anti-tank Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2SPs)
- Total strength: 28 SPs (equivalent to 14,000 men)
- Exhaustion Point: 10 SPs
Although this is nice and simple, it does not reflect the fact that any equipment 'lost' during a campaign needs to be replaced ... and this requires production capacity rather than personnel replacement. If I apply this idea to my example, it now looks like this:
- 1st Infantry Division:
- General von Tarlenheim (Average; 6 SPs)
- 1st Divisional HQ (Average; 2 EVs)
- 1st Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
- 2nd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
- 3rd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
- 1st Artillery Regiment (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
- 1st Anti-tank Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
- Total strength: 22 SPs + 6 EVs (equivalent to 11,000 men)
- Exhaustion Point: 8 SPs
- 1st Panzer Division:
- General Hentzau (Above average; 6 SPs)
- 4th Divisional HQ (Average; 2 EVs)
- 1st Armoured Car Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
- 1st Panzer Regiment (Average; 3 SPs + 3 EVs)
- 2nd Panzer Regiment (Average; 3 SPs + 3EVs)
- 7th Motorised Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs + 3 EVs)
- 4th Artillery Regiment (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
- 4th Panzerjager Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
- Total strength: 22 SPs + 17 EVs (equivalent to 11,500 men)
- Exhaustion Point: 8 SPs
In campaign terms, the two formations now 'cost' significantly different amounts of production capacity to raise before a campaign, and replacing losses of equipment is far more costly in the case of armoured formations than it is for standard infantry ones.
This is just one of the ideas that is currently whirling around in my head, and may well come to nothing. If I do take it further, one thing that might come into play is equipment recovery on the battlefield, a factor that became very important to all sides during World War Two. It's much easier, quicker, and less costly to repair a battle-damaged tank you can recover than it is to replace one that is totally lost because the enemy has occupied the battlefield.
It is certainly something for me to think about over the coming weeks.
.jpg)
The EV rating is an interesting dimension for a "Modern" period campaign. How much armour / other equipment is likely to have been recovered?
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteLooking at what happened during my mini-campaign, it might have effected how well the Russians might have recovered before the final battle.
All the best,
Bob
An interesting idea for a campaign - thinking Of 'Maudlin Jack's comment, I believe that one of the 'lessons learned' from the Western Desert Campaign in the period up to Aalamein was that the German tank recovery operation was much more effective than the British efforts - meaning that they could keep their tank forces 'ip to strength' wihout the same level of dependency on the supply of replacement tanks from home that 8th Army had. (Sadly I can't now remember where I read that particular of information!) Also, from the same theatre, both sides sent teams of engineers out after tank actions to blow up their opponent's damaged tanks to prevent their recovery
ReplyDeleteIan Dury,
DeleteSome years ago, I read Robert Forczyk’s two volume TANK WARFARE ON THE EASTERN FRONT, and it explained how important the recovery and repair of damaged tanks was to ensuring that the Germans managed to maintaining the frontline strength of their tank forces. I seem to remember that they had a highly developed system to deal with damaged AFVs and other vehicles that ranged from repair depots that we’re located just behind the front to the complete removal of the damaged vehicle back to factories in Germany.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, you have map locations that produce EV, right, or whatever you call the element of production?
ReplyDeleteIf so, my suggestion is to keep it fairly simple: Side A produces an amount of EV in a cycle (turn or turns during which the EV is produced prior to it being available)
Then, when Side A spends its production, each SP for infantry formations cost X, Armored cost Y, and so on.
Track only EV, using it as your method of exchange for SPs.
As for recoverable vehicles vs total loss, call it a wash. Logistically, Side A is still spending resources in spare parts, manhours, and lost equipment (recovery teams were in a war zone after all) and while the replacement cost of a Panzer IV is higher than repairing it, the opportunity and resource costs that could be used elsewhere would make the savings vs replacement much less.
Justin Penwith,
DeleteThanks for your suggestions, which make a lot of sense.
As I stated in reply to Ian Dury's comment, in his books, Robert Forczyk makes a good case for the possibility of including some sort of AFV and vehicle recovery in most World War Two wargame campaigns. Whilst I take your point that money and resources had to be spent repairing damaged vehicles, the fact that repaired ones could be turned around faster than new ones could be produced helped keep frontline AFV strengths higher than would have otherwise been possible. That certainly could have an influence on the outcome of a campaign.
All the best,
Bob
As a more general observation, armoured units typically suffer higher proportionate losses during operations but then recover vehicle strength far more quickly than infantry formations recover troop losses. This is largely because the majority of "lost" vehicles suffer trivial damage. This was borne out by the experience of the IDF in both the 67 and 73 wars, as well as enshrined in the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame (itself based on operational experience in WW2 and Korea).
ReplyDeleteSo I guess, I'm just saying don't over think it.
Martin Rapier,
DeleteEven during modern conflicts, at times - and depending upon the army - breakdowns seem to be as big a cause of AFVs being 'lost' during operations as actual combat. Breakdowns usually can be repaired relatively quickly in the field, whereas serious battle damage may require an entire re-build that is conducted under factory conditions.
I do - however - take your point about not overthinking this. After all, I want to fight a wargame campaign, not conduct a spreadsheet/accounting exercise!
All the best,
Bob
An interesting idea for modern campaigns. As far as advice, I recall your wargaming design rules. Is this going to add to the game? Will the mechanism be remembered? Is there an easier way to model it rather than add a new factor to strength points? My own random thoughts would be a reverse damage chart based on the quality of an army’s ability to repair its machine. Average armies would be able to replace SPs on a roll of a 4,5 or 6 whereas a 1,2 or 3 would indicate a less desired outcome.
ReplyDeleteSteve8,
DeleteI want to keep the campaign rules as simple as possible, and using the EV concept is very much an idea I’m toying with, but not yet totally committed to using. I like your idea of a reverse damage chart as an alternative. It would certainly reduce the amount of record keeping.
All the best,
Bob
I was going to suggest something similar. Unit X has an EV of 4. Its chance of repair and resupply are based on how much damage it takes. Losing 1SP is no big deal while losing 4 (or more) would mean the unit is best sent to the glue factory. An inverse die roll against losses would restore so many SPs.
DeleteJust a thought.
Just tying to keep it all grounded within party approved doctrine 😀
DeleteSteve8,
DeleteI appreciate your suggestion ... and have been playing around with how it might have worked with my recent mini-campaign.
All the best,
Bob
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteYou make a very interesting point and excellent suggestion. In the recent mini-campaign, units that were basically rebuilt with new personnel (i.e. they had more than 50% that had to be replaced) were down graded).
All the best,
Bob
Loving this post run
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the Connections UK 2014 Keynote speaker Colonel David Schroeder
http://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/ConnectionsKeynote.pdf
Step loss does not reflect a campaigns wear and tear - one WW2 Game he played to death he commented on that .. despite all the fighting they did .. his best units were always kept at full strength despite "leading the charge" .. something no army in the field could ever hope to maintain
Love your the comment above "back to the glue factory"
Looking forward to your next post
Geordie an Exile FoG,
DeleteI must re-read the text of Colonel Schroeder’s session, which I cannot at present remember.
One thing that reading the history of the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War seems to reinforce is the difference between the German and Russian approach to ‘lost’ formations. The Germans would try to rebuild a division around a core of its original personnel whereas the Russians tended just to re-raised them from scratch with entirely new personnel. Some Russian divisions went through three or four iterations during their lives, whereas those German division that were rebuilt might change designation (for example, become Volksgrenadier Divisions), but were seldom completely re-raised. (There may have been exceptions to this after Stalingrad, but I cannot recall any others.)
I also love Mr Pavone’s ‘glue factory’ comment!
All the best,
Bob
Something else just occurred to me when I came back to this article. Does each side have a supply reserve? I imagine it being abstract, points don't necessarily have to be any resource in particular. But they could be spent to bring reinforcements to the front. The challenges could be numerous. The German player's points are disbursed slowly while the Russians have can rapidly rebuild armies. It could be random, scheduled or cost more to move the supplies. The last option would add cost to the reinforcements. Moving an infantry regiment forward would cost relatively little while tanks cost more.
DeleteGiven the way you described how Russians would just create a new division, maybe their costs are high but they get an entire unit out of it?
Glad you guys got a chuckle out of my joke.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteYou make some very interesting and pertinent points. The problem is trying to create a simple, easy to use set of rules that do what you suggest at the same time as ensuring that the players don't end up having to keep detailed records.
Not a insoluble conundrum, but a simple solution to it has yet to present itself to me.
All the best,
Bob