Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Steam Testing Branch.
JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:55 am

I noticed when I was playing the Ruhr Assault scenario that the unit assignment for US 9th Army and US 1st Army is really skewed, with 17 units assigned to 1st Army and 5 units assigned to 9th Army. I did a little research and noticed that this is based off the historical unit assignments on January 1st, 1945 for each army - but this is a little anachronistic for the ahistorical storyline. It also means that 1st Army's abilities don't stretch as far, and 9th Army's abilities are a little constrained geographically, all in all making the setup somewhat inefficient.

Historically, US 9th Army was housing units that needed to rest after bearing the brunt of the German assault in the Battle of the Bulge. In the meantime 1st Army was augmented by units normally assigned to XIII and XIX Corps in 9th Army to reduce the Bulge. 2nd Armored, 29th Infantry and 30th Infantry in XIX Corps and 84th Infantry, 102nd Infantry and an Armored Division (7th and 5th permanently switched) in XIII Corps all eventually returned once the lines were restored in February 1945 and the Spring's offensives began to take shape.

In the ahistorical scenarios, the setup now is essentially the same, even though the prior Herbstnebel scenario has US 9th Army receiving reinforcements from 1st Army and SHAEF Reserves to fight off the German assault. One would think that 9th Army would have its normal units assigned by January 1st and the 1st Army units returned, along with some of the augmenting units from the Reserves (presumably III Corps or, more likely, VIII Corps being assigned to 9th Army to house those troops).

I think it would make sense to shake up the starting unit roster a bit for the American armies, assigning 29 ID, 30 ID, 84 ID, 102 ID, 2 Arm, and 7 Arm to 9th Army, and probably another 4 units from 1st Army (maybe 99 ID, 106 ID, 8 ID, and 83 ID). This would balance out potential tactical options a bit better.

User avatar
Danielefc
2x2 Games
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby Danielefc » Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:24 am

Hi Jberg, and thanks for the feedback.

The reason for (mostly) sticking to the historical line-up for the Allies whenever possible is because it requires some fairly intricate spreadsheets to make sure that

* most divisions get to see combat
* each Army has the potential to earn enough XP
* divisions are introduced with roughly the right amount of XP in the standalones and when they are introduced into the campaign
* divisions stay with/move to the "right" army
* divisions are in the right theater at the right time
* etc

Adding major changes to these setups is time consuming and "dangerous", as it inevitably leads to situations like the one you found for us in Italy, where the 10th Mountain popped up twice at the same time and the Canadian armor forgot it was supposed to be in Northern Europe.

Having said that, on Monday I'll give it an extra look and see if some changes can be made.

Cheers!

JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Re: Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:59 pm

Danielefc wrote:Hi Jberg, and thanks for the feedback.

The reason for (mostly) sticking to the historical line-up for the Allies whenever possible is because it requires some fairly intricate spreadsheets to make sure that

* most divisions get to see combat
* each Army has the potential to earn enough XP
* divisions are introduced with roughly the right amount of XP in the standalones and when they are introduced into the campaign
* divisions stay with/move to the "right" army
* divisions are in the right theater at the right time
* etc

Adding major changes to these setups is time consuming and "dangerous", as it inevitably leads to situations like the one you found for us in Italy, where the 10th Mountain popped up twice at the same time and the Canadian armor forgot it was supposed to be in Northern Europe.

Having said that, on Monday I'll give it an extra look and see if some changes can be made.

Cheers!


A couple thoughts if you do decide to take a look, though I recognize that it probably would take a relatively heavy lift to re-roster some of the scenarios.

A couple assumptions, to start out with.

1. Since BR 2nd Army took the brunt of the Herbstnebel attack, US forces wouldn't need to be reshuffled for certain units to recover. Therefore, VIII Corps and 9th Army can be more robust. Also, perhaps, since the BR 2nd Army does take the brunt of Herbstnebel, any growth in US 9th Army can be offset by reductions to BR 2nd Army (they still likely occupy the salient, but US 9th could take up some of that responsibility).

2. Most US Corps by this point have 4 divisions assigned, rather than the 3 average assigned in the fall of 1944.

3. Many of the units sent to US 9th during Herbstnebel have returned to their original Army (Looking at you 1st Army). That includes 10th Armored returning to 3rd Army.

With this being said, the potential unit assignments.

US 9th Army: 29 ID, 30 ID, 104 ID, 2 Arm, 102 ID, 84 ID, 94 ID, & 7 Arm.

All of these units can be veterans, since they would have fought presumably hard in the prior scenario. 104 ID and 94 ID were not part of 9th Army, but since they were rushed to the front without pre-existing Army assignments (104 ID would have been assigned to 1st Army historically about the same time it shows up to reinforce 9th), it seems likely both would remain with the 9th Army.

US 1st Army: 1 ID, 2 ID, 99 ID, 3 Arm, 4 ID, 9 ID, 78 ID, 5 Arm, 28 ID, 9 Arm, 8 ID, 83 ID

These were basically the units assigned to 1st Army in November 1944, and without the assault of Wacht am Rhein, it's unlikely the unit roster would have changed much. I've got VII Corps (1 ID, 2 ID, 99 ID, 3 Arm) returning from 9th Army, with the reinforcing units plucked from all of 1st Army assigned. Then V Corps (4 ID, 9 ID, 78 ID, 5 Arm) receiving some of the winter's reinforcements while covering the northern sector of 1st Army and VIII Corps (28 ID, 9 Arm, 8 ID, 83 ID) covering the southern end. You can also rearrange them back to their early November assignments with a couple new divisions assigned, with VII Corps north (1 ID, 9 ID, 3 Arm + either 78 ID or 99 ID), V Corps in the center (4 ID, 5 Arm, 2 ID, + either 28 ID or 99 ID) and VIII Corps in the south (9 Arm, 8 ID, 83 ID + either 78 ID or 28 ID).

Overall, that's 20 Divisions in place of the 19 non-airborne US divisions already rostered into the scenario (I think the real change is 9th Armored, which, since it wasn't nearly destroyed in Bulge can be an active division). I think only minimal changes would be required to Battle for Bavaria, if any.

JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Re: Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:05 pm

Finally, I did check in on Battle of Bavaria, and I noticed a couple units would, indeed, need to swap if any roster remixing were to occur.

US 3rd Army: 9 US Arm, 28 US ID, and 4 US ID are all in the 3rd Army, which in my remix would now be in 1st Army. However, US 75 ID and US 76 ID would no longer be assigned to 1st Army and could move over, and with 4 Arm, 6 Arm, 10 Arm, and 11 Arm (plus 8 Arm on the way), I don't think this scenario would be hurting for armor in the north. If you want to keep unit balances the same, though, the 9 Arm could just remain in this scenario and not move to the Ruhr Assault scenario.

US 7th Army: The only thing here is that I think it's a little too early for the 63 ID to have arrived - this might be the 69 ID instead. I think the 63 ID was in Europe, but was assigned to rear duty. This looks like the only scenario for either division down this line, so it probably doesn't matter.

Thanks for entertaining me. I've been using my quarantine time to shore up a lot of my knowledge and records of unit assignments during WW2 (for the allies, specifically). This all just happened to coincide with extracurricular hobbies.

User avatar
Danielefc
2x2 Games
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby Danielefc » Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:11 am

I don't judge - It was my extracurricular hobby till I landed this job :lol: and thanks for this additional and comprehensive oob feedback.

Cheers!

JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Re: Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Tue May 19, 2020 12:54 pm

Hi Again. I'm guessing since we've got Update 12 out now and you're all starting to shift focus to the next DLC that we won't see much more in the shape of adjustments to scenario unit rosters? I just wanted to check.... I know you said it would be a relatively major effort, but I've been tracking every update as its issued and keep checking obsessively.

I made suggestions for this scenario (and de facto affecting the Bavarian Assault scenario) and the Saar-Vosges scenario (which could be whiddled down to just adding a couple trained level reinforcement units rather than a full reracking of positions).

JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Re: Ruhr Assault Army Unit Balancing

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:17 pm

In the interests of moving this forward and offering a clearer suggestion of what I was recommending, I've created some scenarios and posted to the Steam Workshop. I shifted the arrangement of the US divisions in the Ruhr Assault and Battle for Bavaria scenarios.

First up, the Revised Ruhr Assault: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2348173334

Next, the Revised Battle for Bavaria: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2348175799

There is some obvious follow-up that might occur for Operation Stapler and Dash to Berlin, though in either case I'm somewhat less passionate because the unit jumble makes more sense (I am still working on an Op Stapler revised unit scenario). I'm pretty sure the two above satisfactorily resolve the problems of repeat units in scenarios occurring simultaneously.

I also created some slighter revisions for the preceding scenarios:

For Advance to the Ruhr, I thought that the absence of VIII Corps was a bit anachronistic, especially considering in this alternate scenario of an earlier advance to the Rhine that the US 2, 8, and 83 divisions would be even more likely to be in place at the front by October. Historically, all three reached the front in the last days of September. This also give 9th Army a little more to do and a bit more experience prior to playing a role in the remaining two scenarios it will appear in the campaign.
Scenario file:https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2348168574

For the Saar-Vosges Offensive, there were also unit presence issues I highlighted elsewhere, and which I think the following addresses: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2348170920. This swaps out the 83 Division and brings in the 26th, while the 44th and 100th Divisions are added for US 7th Army rosters. The latter two would have been available to move into the 7th Army line, though have significant distance to make up to actually make it to an advancing front.