Isolation & Unit Destruction

[Anthropoid]

I managed to isolate a large stack of French units in Nancy for enough turns that they went *poof* and disappeared. Here is what the extended rule book has to say

9.3.1 An Isolated Stack
Suffering Isolation is different and more severe than being unsupplied. A
stack is “isolated”:
. . .
Consequences
● An isolated unit may not use any RP in combat.
● Each isolated unit will do an Attrition test at the end of the turn
● During the 2nd consecutive turn of isolation, each isolated unit is
destroyed.

And here is what it has to say a bit further down about isolation of Armies.

9.3.3 Automatic Destruction
At the end of the next following turn, if the unit is still isolated, it is
automatically eliminated.

What I want to know is this: is getting destroyed from isolation identical to getting "destroyed" in combat?

Looking on page 40 where it talks about the Results of Morale Checks from combats we have this

Out of Combat: the corps is removed till the end of the turn and
will reappear as a reinforcement in the following turn (unless it
was unsupplied and/or isolated at the time of the battle, in
which case it is eliminated

Eliminated: the corps is destroyed.

Panic: the corps is destroyed and the battle is lost! Two other
corps in the same area must make a Morale check
immediately.

So, the units I've been "getting back" in the next reinforcements phase must have been ones that went "out of combat" not ones that were "Eliminated/destroyed" or "Panicked?"

Just wanted to make sure. When you guys say eliminated or destroyed (or panicked), you mean it is gone? As in totally and forever? That Corps or division is NEVER coming back, EVER?

Do units that were destroyed become build options in the Recruitments Window? Not saying they should, just asking.

If I understand this combat system accurately, I really like it. It places a premium on concentration of force, which can be quite challenging with army-by-army mode on.

One suggestion that might add a bit of realism: I'm guessing that instances in which an actual corps-sized military unit was "destroyed" are fairly rare in living history, no? Could be wrong, but I'd even guess that a mere Division being "destroyed" was a pretty rare occurrence, wasn't it? I would even go so far as to guess that there were very few Battalions that underwent anything like 75% casualties or captured, let alone full-scale "destruction?"

Still, the idea that a Division, or even a Corps has suffered such severe casualties (35 to 50% casualties or captured??) that it is no longer an effective fighting force, and cannot possibly be rebuilt into an effective fighting force within a couple years time . . . okay, so maybe that actually did happen in WWI and WWII?

In any event, the idea that all 20 or 30-thousand guys in a Corps are just *poof* gone kinda seems to be a bit contrary to the generally rigorous attention to realism, although it is perhaps a reasonable game mechanic. I mean with THAT many guys, surely there would be a 10 or 15,000 survivors?

One possible suggestion: When a corps or division is "destroyed" at the end of that turn (or in the next turns reinforcements) offer the player a couple different options (popup window) with some text something like this:

"During the Battle of ________ the LXV Infantry Corps suffered severe casualties and was eliminated as an effective fighting unit. The Corps is destroyed, but you can allocate the remnants of the Corps as you see fit. Would you like to:

A. Distribute the survivors of LXV Infantry Corps to the nearest wounded Corps (distributes some RPs to wounded units [0 to 3 max?], number of RPs could be derived from an algorithm based on some degree of randominicity, as well as the Corps original size, and how badly it was beaten in the combat . . .)

B. Have the survivors of LXV Infantry Corps absorbed into the Recruitment pool (receive some additional RPs during the next reinforcement phase, again depending on similar algorithm as that above, again 0 to 3 max?).

C. Distribute the survivors to rear area, administrative, and support unit assignments (receive some sort of small bonus . . . not sure what . . . maybe)
25% chance to receive +1 to +2 EPs
25% chance to receive +15% to initiative check on next round
25% chance to receive +1 NW
25% chance to receive nothing

If a corps is "destroyed" because it is isolated, then in that case, I do not think that there should be any survivors to distribute to (A) (B) or (C) options.

[calvinus]

Out-of-combat units are not destroyed: they come back for free reinforcements (but damaged of course) the turn after the combat.

Destroyed units are not lost forever[/UI]: they can be rebuilt, paying RPs and EPs of course! But.... destroyed [U]naval units are lost for ever, of course! They are sunk.

[pesec]

Basically, "destroyed" units can be considered units mauled so badly that great effort needs to be done to put them back in action. That effort is abstracted to rebuilding the unit, spending EPs and RPs.

Isolation, the way it is in the game, means that unit is completely cut off from all friendly supplies. So, each corps means 30 000 soldiers who receive no ammo and no food for a month. They have to ration whatever food they have or can fourage from countryside, they receive no ammo or medication, so their wounded will just die in dirt.

As you can imagine, that is a very bad situation. Since each turn is 1 or 2 months, it is realistic to have unit destroyed (with only few making it back) by month of such complete deprivation. "Isolated" means that something has gone very, very wrong with planning.

A real world example is German army in Stalingrad.

[Anthropoid]

Basically, "destroyed" units can be considered units mauled so badly that great effort needs to be done to put them back in action. That effort is abstracted to rebuilding the unit, spending EPs and RPs.

Isolation, the way it is in the game, means that unit is completely cut off from all friendly supplies. So, each corps means 30 000 soldiers who receive no ammo and no food for a month. They have to ration whatever food they have or can fourage from countryside, they receive no ammo or medication, so their wounded will just die in dirt.

As you can imagine, that is a very bad situation. Since each turn is 1 or 2 months, it is realistic to have unit destroyed (with only few making it back) by month of such complete deprivation. "Isolated" means that something has gone very, very wrong with planning.

A real world example is German army in Stalingrad.

Stalingrad is a good example Pesec (and BTW welcome!). I wonder how many Armies/Corps/Divisions = sum total # of personnel were trapped there, and also how many survivors managed to escape back to the west?

[pesec]

Stalingrad is a good example Pesec (and BTW welcome!). I wonder how many Armies/Corps/Divisions = sum total # of personnel were trapped there, and also how many survivors managed to escape back to the west?

The encirclement itself trapped around 300 000 Germans + Romanians in Stalingrad and its suburbs. By the time Germans surrendered, there were 91 000 left, although some soldiers surrendered before the "official" surrender.

The encircled force was 6'th German army (although some parts of it were pushed away from encirclement and, therefore, survived though parts of 4'th army were surrounded instead). I would say in La Grande Guerre terms that would be a 10-corps main army isolated and destroyed (capturing Stalingrad was main objective of Germans).

Basically, take your best troops, stick as many as you can into one army and then have that army isolated and destroyed while performing a Grand Offensive - you'll re-enact Stalingrad

[Anthropoid]

Okay so 300,000 in the initially surrounded and isolated set, and then 91,000 who surrendered after all the fighting?

But how many were neither killed, or captured? Surely SOME of them escaped back toward Germany?

In short, out of the 209,000 who did NOT surrender, how many actually died? Are you saying that all 300,000 of the German troops who were surrounded in Stalingrad were either killed (209,000) or captured (91,000)?

Or is the number killed actually smaller than 209,000, and there was another fraction who escaped the encirclement and fled back to the West? Even if it was only 10,000 troops (thus 199,000 killed; 91,000 captured; 10,000 escaped), I am guessing that those guys SOMEHOW rejoined the larger mass of German military?

That is the main point that I'm interested in.

Even in the most extreme instances of mass isolation and destruction in world history, I'm betting that there have always been an appreciable fraction of the units involved that escaped being killed or captured, or for that matter even wounded. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I'm speculating.

For example, consider the 209,000 in the isolated stack in Stalingrad who did not surrender. Suppose for example that ~50,000 of those German troops managed to break out of the isolation at some point, and escaped the debacle at Stalingrad. Then in order for a game like WWI to realistically model such an isolation and destruction event, something like the equivalent of 1.5 Corps worth of units or RP or something should be awarded back after all the isolated units were 'destroyed.'

Thus, my suggestions above.

ADDIT: I looked on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

It looks like not all the initially encircled were killed or captured, let alone all who got involved in the battle.

[Le Ricain]

Okay so 300,000 in the initially surrounded and isolated set, and then 91,000 who surrendered after all the fighting?

But how many were neither killed, or captured? Surely SOME of them escaped back toward Germany?

In short, out of the 209,000 who did NOT surrender, how many actually died? Are you saying that all 300,000 of the German troops who were surrounded in Stalingrad were either killed (209,000) or captured (91,000)?

Or is the number killed actually smaller than 209,000, and there was another fraction who escaped the encirclement and fled back to the West? Even if it was only 10,000 troops (thus 199,000 killed; 91,000 captured; 10,000 escaped), I am guessing that those guys SOMEHOW rejoined the larger mass of German military?

That is the main point that I'm interested in.

Even in the most extreme instances of mass isolation and destruction in world history, I'm betting that there have always been an appreciable fraction of the units involved that escaped being killed or captured, or for that matter even wounded. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I'm speculating.

For example, consider the 209,000 in the isolated stack in Stalingrad who did not surrender. Suppose for example that ~50,000 of those German troops managed to break out of the isolation at some point, and escaped the debacle at Stalingrad. Then in order for a game like WWI to realistically model such an isolation and destruction event, something like the equivalent of 1.5 Corps worth of units or RP or something should be awarded back after all the isolated units were 'destroyed.'

Thus, my suggestions above.

ADDIT: I looked on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

It looks like not all the initially encircled were killed or captured, let alone all who got involved in the battle.

Your problem is that you are assuming that the ~300,000 troops trapped in Stalingrad were all German. Estimates of Germans range from 195,000 to 232,000. The remainder were Russian Hiwis ~50,000 and Roumanians/Italians ~10,000. The number of prisoners reported surrendering in January, 91,000, is for Germans only. Between 19 November and 31 January the Soviets reported capturing 111,465 prisoners and 8,928 hospital wounded. These figures do not differentiate between German and non-German prisoners nor between inside or outside Stalingrad.

The number of soldiers who escaped Stalingrad is pretty much agreed upon as ~25,000 - wounded and specialists who were evacuated by air.

[Anthropoid]

Thanks Le Ricain!

The number of soldiers who escaped Stalingrad is pretty much agreed upon as ~25,000 - wounded and specialists who were evacuated by air.

Okay: ~300,000 isolated, ~25,000 escaped in what is probably the most dramatic example of isolation and destruction in military history. That is not the same as zero escaped.

10 Corp isolated, with ~equivalent of 0.833 'escaped'~ and 9.167 destroyed is not the same as: 10 isolated with zero escaped and 10 destroyed.

My point? : Isolation should not automatically lead to the total destruction of all isolated units. For the sake of realism there should be (if it is reasonable to code it) a chance that some semi-random portion of the isolated units 'escape' to be represented as human resources of one sort or another.

I say semi-random because maybe the probability and portion that escapes could be mediated or moderated by various in-game factors (terrain, combat results, etc.).

Ideas, to quote myself

One possible suggestion: When a corps or division is "destroyed" at the end of that turn (or in the next turns reinforcements) offer the player a couple different options (popup window) with some text something like this:

"During the Battle of ________ the LXV Infantry Corps suffered severe casualties and was eliminated as an effective fighting unit. The Corps is destroyed, but you can allocate the remnants of the Corps as you see fit. Would you like to:

A. Distribute the survivors of LXV Infantry Corps to the nearest wounded Corps (distributes some RPs to wounded units [0 to 3 max?], number of RPs could be derived from an algorithm based on some degree of randominicity, as well as the Corps original size, and how badly it was beaten in the combat . . .)

B. Have the survivors of LXV Infantry Corps absorbed into the Recruitment pool (receive some additional RPs during the next reinforcement phase, again depending on similar algorithm as that above, again 0 to 3 max?).

C. Distribute the survivors to rear area, administrative, and support unit assignments (receive some sort of small bonus . . . not sure what . . . maybe)
25% chance to receive +1 to +2 EPs
25% chance to receive +15% to initiative check on next round
25% chance to receive +1 NW
25% chance to receive nothing

[pesec]

Keep in mind that "destroyed" corps is not necessarially annihilated. In "regular" combat a morale check gone bad can result in corps "destruction" which is identical to what isolation does. That does not mean that every single man is killed!

Even though those ~25 000 escaped, a lot of effort would be needed to turn them back into battle-capable units. Not to mention that many were in horrible physical shape and were not fit for duty.

When corps are lost to isolation, there is still an option to re-build them, indicating that there is something to re-build around.

Combat in La Grande Guerre is on scale of very big units. In a single round, you have corps severely depleted. Small numbers of survivors can be on too small scale to introduce into such system.

[Anthropoid]

Thanks for your response Pesec. Not trying to be an argumentative, but as somebody not intimately familiar with military human resource management, this all raises lots of questions for me. The philosophy of the game is clearly to strive for as much realism as possible given the coding and other game-related constraints, so I cannot help but wonder if some of the abstractions having to do with Corps losses, and indeed, even with Corps Out-of-Combat, are not a bit in breach of that basic premise to 'maximize realism.' If I'm right, and if after discussion, there is some sort of consensus, and if implementing some small changes are not prohibitive in-terms of coding, then well . . . why not!

Keep in mind that "destroyed" corps is not necessarially annihilated. In "regular" combat a morale check gone bad can result in corps "destruction" which is identical to what isolation does. That does not mean that every single man is killed!

I understand in principle the idea that a large military unit like a Corps or a Division or even a whole Army might undergo such heavy casualties that its internal structure is too severely compromised for it to continue to operate as an effective front-line combat unit.

But is rebuilding the original mother unit the only thing for which the survivors of a severely depleted Corps/Army would be/have been used?

It raises the question for me of what happened to those 25,000 German survivors of the battle of Stalingrad? Certainly some of them might have required fairly extensive hospital convalescence; but if 10,000 were more or less 75% fit for duty, 10,000 were banged up and needed a month or so convalescence, and 5,000 needed extensive convalescence, that is still 20,000 personnel for which a wide-variety of immediate duties might have ensued within the larger framework of the Wehrmacht and German society. Given a Corps, the smallest unit in the game, would have something like 30,000, 20,000 or 25,000 'free' personnel does not seem like 'too small a fraction' to be significant in game-terms.

What did those 25,000 survivors do after getting back behind friendly lines?

At present in game terms, what the survivors of a unit like that "do" is to go into an inactive and --in game terms inconsequential--pool of 'buildable' units. Granted, if a corps or HQ is destroyed, you can rebuild at a cost of time and money, but until you expend that time and money the units in your buildable queue are just inconsequential. Perhaps that is reasonable, given the balance of maintaining all these rear-area troops or reservists or whatever, might negate any potential benefit from them acting as support or other rear-area functions.

As such, the idea that the buildable units are effectively inconsequential in game terms until such time as they are paid to be rebuilt is all well and good. But is rebuilding the mother unit the ONLY reasonable use to which the remnants of a badly damaged unit should be put in game terms? Moreover, is it realistic that this is the only use to which the remnants of a badly damaged unit can be put in the game?

My guess is that those 25,000 survivors, or let us say the hypothetical 10,000who were fit to be immediately reassigned would have been reassigned pretty much immediately. In game terms, they would have gone into the Recruit Pool (RP). Assuming the average Corps has a strength: 3 attack 4 defense, and one RP can replenish one level, then perhaps ~1 point of attack or defense is equivalent to about 10,000 guys? Using this logic, in the case of Stalingrad, those 25,000 survivors should then have been allocatable to: (a) the rebuild queue, or (b) the RP pool, providing 2.5 (or merely 1.0) points.

Some of those survivors, if they were a bit unusual in their rank, the heroism of their story, their specific experiences during their escape, or their job speciality, might instead have been 'reassigned' to other duties that could be better represented in other in-game-terms besides boosting the RP. For example, I'm thinking here of the American GIs who were brought back stateside after Iwo Jima for the Bond Tour? Now granted, there was a whole propaganda machinery in place there, and that was aggrandizing 3 (or was it four?) heroes of a "Great Victory," but I would think that ANY military-political system would try to take advantage of such an opportunity any time it presented itself? Thus my idea that an opportunity is presented to the player to try for a fairly small chance at a boost to NW.

Alternatively, some of those survivors might have made damn good drill sergeants, or classroom instructors at academy, or rear area commanders, or a host of other roles where their specific experiences surviving that debacle would actually have constituted 'value-added' to the overall German war fighting ability.

Obviously a single drill sergeant, or one or two "war heroes" or a few instructors are not enough to have any effect represented in game terms.

But if we are talking about numbers like 10,000 or 25,000 people, in a game where the smallest unit represents ~30,000 then I would think it is not unreasonable that the impact of such personnel reallocations within the societies war-fighting apparatus would be appreciable in ways other than: go sit in a pool of rebuildable units.

Just ideas!

[Flop]

Keep in mind that most of the troops that escaped Stalingrad, did so using troop transport airplanes, afaik. Something that wasn't possible in WW1. Still, I suppose it isn't unreasonable to assume that there will always be some troops that escape encirclement.

[Le Ricain]

Keep in mind that most of the troops that escaped Stalingrad, did so using troop transport airplanes, afaik. Something that wasn't possible in WW1. Still, I suppose it isn't unreasonable to assume that there will always be some troops that escape encirclement.

Yes, the 25,000 quoted above as escaping Stalingrad were all evauated by air.

[Anthropoid]

Yes, the 25,000 quoted above as escaping Stalingrad were all evauated by air.

So there should be no escaping isolation in this game unless a combat knocks the encirclemen?