Should IPM be used for early World War II Soviet scenarios?

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,145
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
That might better reflect the army, and in the Winter War too.

Also I would not be opposed to modifying the way leaders are handled. As it stands sides with IPM either have to have a lot of leaders (very ahistorical; for example I find the CPVA force in Centurions Retreat way, way over-led, which I suspect is due to their vulnerability to losing their mobility) or worry that the enemy will concentrate all fire on them, leaving the side unable to move. I suggest it might be nice to have a way to generate new leaders when old ones are lost, somewhat like leader creation. You might even go so far as to allow removal of a broken leader in exchange for a roll on the IPM Leader Creation Table. I call it a new table, but it might be the existing one with suitable drm. I haven't really thought about the details as such. This modification would give the side limited leaders while at the same time making it less susceptible to having a single point of failure.

JR
 
Last edited:

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
3,768
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I don't think that CVPA IPM really reflects the early war or Winter War Soviet Army. It's not ruthless enough and as you say too many leaders. Remember that Chinese Commissars don't expend the same number of pistol rounds as their Soviet counterparts. SSRs like MUST make a human wave at least N time(s) per scenario or 1 per X game turns for a Soviet attacker or no rout/Fanatic for a defender would rest easier with me.
 

Augie

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
687
Reaction score
137
Location
Florida
Country
llUnited States
the leader doesn't have to participate in the IPM. So there are smart ways to keep the leader safe , and even catch up to the IPM group so he can send them off on another IPM next turn
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,145
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I don't think that CVPA IPM really reflects the early war or Winter War Soviet Army. It's not ruthless enough and as you say too many leaders.
I think the problem of needing too many leaders to make a scenario playable is a side-effect of the design of IPM, and with the IPM Leader Creation that can be fixed.

Remember that Chinese Commissars don't expend the same number of pistol rounds as their Soviet counterparts.
I'm not suggesting replacing the Soviet-style leadership with Chinese-style leadership. The style of leaders is independent from using IPM.

SSRs like MUST make a human wave at least N time(s) per scenario or 1 per X game turns for a Soviet attacker or no rout/Fanatic for a defender would rest easier with me.
That is another approach. I would keep the Human Wave rules too. I like IPM because it doesn't raise the ML and because it doesn't require a target within eight hexes or a direction. The Human Wave has its uses, but I don't think is suitable to replace IPM in general movement situations.

JR
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,145
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
the leader doesn't have to participate in the IPM. So there are smart ways to keep the leader safe , and even catch up to the IPM group so he can send them off on another IPM next turn
I don't think this works out as well in practice. You can send off the IPM group without the officer, but the enemy can ignore it and simply wait for the officer to move. If the officer moves, shoot him dead. If you do, the IPM group is now immobile (in the limited sense that units subject to IPM rules are immobile, e.g. they are still able to roll a TC or move one Location, etc). If the officer does not move, the IPM group is now immobile (in that same limited sense). So you get one turn of movement followed by several turns of waiting for a leader to show up again. To make IPM scenarios playable you have to add spare leaders, so that shooting one (or equivalently, keeping him skulking in the rear) does not immobilize a wing of your forces.

JR
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
3,768
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
That is another approach. I would keep the Human Wave rules too. I like IPM because it doesn't raise the ML and because it doesn't require a target within eight hexes or a direction. The Human Wave has its uses, but I don't think is suitable to replace IPM in general movement situations.
As part of the SSR you could zero the ML boost and allow targets to be at a greater or any distance.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,760
Reaction score
1,430
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
There is a group designing a Berlin CG and they really wanted to find a way of representing the Russian inadequate tactics. I think they came up with a form of C&C which is what IPM is in a way. Perhaps by the time of Berlin the Russians were quite tactically proficient, but that is another story.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,145
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
As part of the SSR you could zero the ML boost and allow targets to be at a greater or any distance.
If you do enough tweaking and monkeying about, you end up with a modified Human Wave rule that would work. And when you are done you have the IPM rules, more or less. You could also mandate some usage of Human Waves, in addition to IPM if you thought that was also appropriate.

JR
 

Augie

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
687
Reaction score
137
Location
Florida
Country
llUnited States
I don't think this works out as well in practice. You can send off the IPM group without the officer, but the enemy can ignore it and simply wait for the officer to move. If the officer moves, shoot him dead. If you do, the IPM group is now immobile (in the limited sense that units subject to IPM rules are immobile, e.g. they are still able to roll a TC or move one Location, etc). If the officer does not move, the IPM group is now immobile (in that same limited sense). So you get one turn of movement followed by several turns of waiting for a leader to show up again. To make IPM scenarios playable you have to add spare leaders, so that shooting one (or equivalently, keeping him skulking in the rear) does not immobilize a wing of your forces.

JR
Our designs and playtesting for Rally Point 17 has the correct number of CPVA leaders per chapter H (i.e not the inflated number in many FW scenario), and IPM works fine. However KGS has a modified HW rule that maybe more appropriate
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,145
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Our designs and playtesting for Rally Point 17 has the correct number of CPVA leaders per chapter H (i.e not the inflated number in many FW scenario), and IPM works fine.
I have not tried any of the RP 17 scenarios so I can't comment about that yet. In general all scenarios (not just with CPVA) seem to have more leaders than called for in the Chapter H rules, but I agree that the FW CPVA seems to exceed even that. I will have to look at the RP 17 scenarios. Perhaps there is no need to tinker with the leadership for IPM. To back to the main point, is IPM appropriate for early war Soviet scenarios?

JR
 

RobZagnut

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
8,813
Reaction score
1,370
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I don't think that CVPA IPM really reflects the early war or Winter War Soviet Army. It's not ruthless enough...
True, it’s not ruthless enough.

Make it similar to IPM, but if a unit Pins while moving it suffers Casualty Reduction by its own leadership.
 

Augie

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
687
Reaction score
137
Location
Florida
Country
llUnited States
Take a look at the KGS human wave modified rules. it does encourage human waves without being overly complicated
 

Pitman

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,015
Reaction score
1,937
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
I don't even think the rule is fair to the PLA in the Korean War. The Chinese Communists increased their tactical knowledge throughout the Chinese Civil War (going through several iterations of tactics). Moreover, some units that fought in Korea were former Chinese Nationalist units and fought largely using the weaponry and tactics they had been using prior to the Korean War.
 
Top