HQ units and FO's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

HQ units and FO's

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> HQ units and FO's

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 4:03:33 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

This is a proposal for any future OOB work. Especially in the Western Allies and German OOB's I would propose that in addition to the Battalion HQ an FO element be added to the initial HQ. Reasoning: Even in an infantry company's organic mortars, there was a Forward Observer element in the mortar sections. Now normally this FO element consisted of probably the assistant Squad/Sect Leader, but he was a trained FO in most cases. All Allied Artillery Batteries in addition to the gun sections also had an FDC section and a section of FO's normally of three or four FO teams that accompanied the supported unit (Infantry, Armor, etc). These FO teams, unlike Hollywood's portrail of them, normally consisted of an NCO and three or four troops who manned the communications equipment. You didn't see officers normally doing call for fire unless they were Plt Ldrs or Co Cdrs. And these Plt Ldrs and Co Cdrs normally did call for fire only in emergency situations. The only time that I could conceive of an FO unit being absent from the unit roster is when there are no indirect fire assets in the force. But then also a lot of the German StUG formations and also the SP gun formations include a variety of observation vehicles that in someways acted as FO's. These vehicle were based on obsolete tank chassises.

Another route to go might be that for every off-board artilllery/mortar/rocket battery/battalion, one on-board FO unit would be included in the purchase. I can't think of a single army that didn't realize the importance of using trained FO's calling for fire from indirect fire assets.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

Post #: 1

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 4:17:42 AM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

I've often wondered about the lack of an FO for every off board arty unit in SP. CM does that. You purchase an arty asset and an FO appears on the game map. FO dies, you lose him and the points. But CM does not have counterbattery fire.

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 2

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:10:26 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

One reason why this hasn't been done in the past is it 'forces' the player to have units they might not want. Consider the campaign game: if a player purchases an FO unit as part of their core force and no OBA, each OBA battery they purchase with support points costs more and comes with an FO. Since all FOs can call fire from all batteries, having 3 or 4 (or more) could be considered wasteful of limited Support Points.

If the game was more restrictive in its abilities regarding FO fire direction (like restricting the FO to a certain OBA formation), then this would be the way to go. Under the current structure, however, players would likely complain that "we" were forcing them to buy units they don't want to.

Another consideration is the limit of 10 units/subformations per formation. In certain cases, there isn't room to add an FO unit to a company structure.

I personally like the idea; I believe the OOBs ought to be as historically accurate as possible. But many players don't agree, and would prefer there to be less "doctrine" in the formation builds.

_____________________________

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 3

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 8:26:31 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

I don't know if it would be a code issue or an OOB one, but what I thought would work would be to have an FO directly subordinant to the AO Headquarters, in this case the FO would be unit A1. The cost of the FO would be included into the cost for the HQ. Include the FO in the HQ for the same cost of 200 pts or adjust the points as needed, this wouldn't interfer in purchasing units for either the core force or for supporting forces. Normally at a battalion HQ an FSE (Fire Support Element of an Officer, an NCO and three-four troops) would be attached for things like clearance of fires, priority of fires, and fire planning. This FSE also has the capability to call for fire if needed with direct communications to the firing batteries FDC. Normally the FSE would be somewhat analogious to the Plt Leader and Plt Sgt of a platoon made up of FO teams, with the teams split out to what ever units (companies/platoons) that needed them.

This I think would do away with the issue of spending points on units a player doesn't want. Would be very historical in nature. And would provide the necessary FO unit for any indirect assets that needed it.

I definitely loved the FO Jeep that is now part of the SPA Plt in the US Enhanced OOB. This is about as historic as possible.

I haven't seen that many WW II TOE's for artillery units, but one thing that has aways kind of puzzled me, is that I thought that most US and British batteries consisted of 6 guns (with the guns divided into two 3 gun firing platoons) instead of 4. Was the 4 gun battery adopted because of weapon slot limits in the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

One reason why this hasn't been done in the past is it 'forces' the player to have units they might not want. Consider the campaign game: if a player purchases an FO unit as part of their core force and no OBA, each OBA battery they purchase with support points costs more and comes with an FO. Since all FOs can call fire from all batteries, having 3 or 4 (or more) could be considered wasteful of limited Support Points.

If the game was more restrictive in its abilities regarding FO fire direction (like restricting the FO to a certain OBA formation), then this would be the way to go. Under the current structure, however, players would likely complain that "we" were forcing them to buy units they don't want to.

Another consideration is the limit of 10 units/subformations per formation. In certain cases, there isn't room to add an FO unit to a company structure.

I personally like the idea; I believe the OOBs ought to be as historically accurate as possible. But many players don't agree, and would prefer there to be less "doctrine" in the formation builds.

< Message edited by Dragoon 45 -- 7/23/2006 8:28:47 AM >

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 4

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 9:03:28 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

I think that the real problem here is that almost nobody plays SPWAW these days using Command/Control turned ON.

All you need with Command/Control OFF is a single solitary FO and it can coordinate and call in the fire of dozens of indirect-fire assets from every source imagineable (naval, air, on-map, off-map, etc.) with an almost immediate response. Under these conditions, who needs more FOs? Who wants more FOs?

Also, the concept of time in SPWAW is "fuzzy". Most people assume that the game is a "few minutes" per turn. Under this assumption, even the longest wait period (a 2.3 turn wait period) is only "a few minutes" times 2.3. So even the lowliest Soviet platoon HQ can call in the fire of all available STAVKA reserve artillery in only "a few minutes" times 2.3.

Thus, Command/Control OFF is the real problem here.

Another problem is having additional "non-combat" units made mandatory by the OOBs. I, for one, like to play big battles involving hundreds of units. The problem is that the game limits me to 100 formations and 400 units per side. Every single "non-combat" unit/formation that I am forced to buy due to forced inclusion in the OOBs means less combat units for me. Just Friday night a friend came over to look at the new enhanced SPWAW v2. You want to know what his very first comment was? "Man, I really don't like all those worthless extra HQ and FO units."

< Message edited by vahauser -- 7/23/2006 9:16:00 AM >

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 5

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 10:41:48 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

A HQ's unit is hardly worthless. It allows another roll on morale.

As for command and control, why would anyone WANT that on? It is cumbersome and unweildy and makes most games unplayable. It is also unrealistic

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 6

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 1:58:14 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

As for command and control, why would anyone WANT that on? It is cumbersome and unweildy and makes most games unplayable. It is also unrealistic

I agree,totally..Thank you Twotribes...

_____________________________

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 7

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 2:24:23 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Twotribes,

Thank you for making my points exactly.

Point #1. If you are playing with Command/Control OFF, then there is none, zero, nada, absolutely no need for more than one FO. Anything more simply takes up valuable unit slots and unit points. And who plays SPWAW with Command/Control turned ON these days?

Point #2. Compare SPWAW 8.40 vs. enhanced SPWAW v2.
11,704 points will buy me 99 platoons of Soviet Marines in standard SPWAW 8.40 (100 formations and 397 total units including the A0).
11,946 points will buy me 80 platoons of Soviet marines in enhanced SPWAW v2 (81 formations and 400 total units including the A0).
In standard SPWAW I get 99 platoon HQs (because the platoon HQ is built into the 0 unit in each marine platoon) that can also fight and only have to worry about 3 other units in the formation for command and morale purposes.
In enhanced SPWAW I get 80 platoon HQs that cannot fight (and have been stripped out of the combat units) and have to worry about 4 other units in the formation for command and morale purposes.
Therefore, I get 396 combat units (with better command and morale because fewer units per formation) for 11,704 points in standard SPWAW.
But I only get 320 combat units (with inferior command and morale because more units per formation) for 11,946 points in enhanced SPWAW.
Bottom line -- you get more bang for your buck with standard SPWAW.
Now you see why my friend Friday night was not happy about what he saw in enhanced SPWAW.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 7/23/2006 2:27:46 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 8

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 5:16:21 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

I don't know if it would be a code issue or an OOB one, but what I thought would work would be to have an FO directly subordinant to the AO Headquarters, in this case the FO would be unit A1. The cost of the FO would be included into the cost for the HQ. Include the FO in the HQ for the same cost of 200 pts or adjust the points as needed, this wouldn't interfer in purchasing units for either the core force or for supporting forces. Normally at a battalion HQ an FSE (Fire Support Element of an Officer, an NCO and three-four troops) would be attached for things like clearance of fires, priority of fires, and fire planning. This FSE also has the capability to call for fire if needed with direct communications to the firing batteries FDC. Normally the FSE would be somewhat analogious to the Plt Leader and Plt Sgt of a platoon made up of FO teams, with the teams split out to what ever units (companies/platoons) that needed them.

This I think would do away with the issue of spending points on units a player doesn't want. Would be very historical in nature. And would provide the necessary FO unit for any indirect assets that needed it.

I definitely loved the FO Jeep that is now part of the SPA Plt in the US Enhanced OOB. This is about as historic as possible.

I haven't seen that many WW II TOE's for artillery units, but one thing that has aways kind of puzzled me, is that I thought that most US and British batteries consisted of 6 guns (with the guns divided into two 3 gun firing platoons) instead of 4. Was the 4 gun battery adopted because of weapon slot limits in the game?

Actually, I have TO&Es for the US 105mm and 155 mm Field Artillery Battalions for 1943, and the Armoured Artillery Battalion for 1943 and 1944. Field Artillery batteries are 4 single-gun Sections. Armoured Artillery batteries are 6 single-SPA Sections (the M7 Priest and others).

The sources I have for the British formations only list the total number of artillery pieces in the command; most of these are 12-, 16-, or 24-gun formations. These are easily divisible by 4, with 3/4/6 Sections resulting. Dividing by 3 isn't as easy, as the 16-gun batteries would not break down into equal sections. This is not to say that 3-gun Sections weren't in the TO&Es; just that I haven't seen any actual TO&Es for the British artillery formations (still waiting for that book in the British Orders of Battle series).

And, yes, in some instances, the 10-unit limit to formations meant things had to be "fudged" a bit. I may take another look at the US SPA formations...

As for the FO, it might be possible to attach one directly to the A0 unit, since that operates as a formation itself; the price for the FO would, however, be added to the cost of the HQ formation, unless a special "no cost" FO unit was built and used ONLY with the A0 formation. That could be tricky, since any FO-class unit would be 'available' to be purchased, potentially.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 9

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 5:35:59 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Twotribes,

Thank you for making my points exactly.

Point #1. If you are playing with Command/Control OFF, then there is none, zero, nada, absolutely no need for more than one FO. Anything more simply takes up valuable unit slots and unit points. And who plays SPWAW with Command/Control turned ON these days?

Point #2. Compare SPWAW 8.40 vs. enhanced SPWAW v2.
11,704 points will buy me 99 platoons of Soviet Marines in standard SPWAW 8.40 (100 formations and 397 total units including the A0).
11,946 points will buy me 80 platoons of Soviet marines in enhanced SPWAW v2 (81 formations and 400 total units including the A0).
In standard SPWAW I get 99 platoon HQs (because the platoon HQ is built into the 0 unit in each marine platoon) that can also fight and only have to worry about 3 other units in the formation for command and morale purposes.
In enhanced SPWAW I get 80 platoon HQs that cannot fight (and have been stripped out of the combat units) and have to worry about 4 other units in the formation for command and morale purposes.
Therefore, I get 396 combat units (with better command and morale because fewer units per formation) for 11,704 points in standard SPWAW.
But I only get 320 combat units (with inferior command and morale because more units per formation) for 11,946 points in enhanced SPWAW.
Bottom line -- you get more bang for your buck with standard SPWAW.
Now you see why my friend Friday night was not happy about what he saw in enhanced SPWAW.

BS. Sorry, but your "take" on those "worthless" Platoon HQ units that we supposedly "stripped out" of the fighting units is utter BS. Neither you nor your friend seem to understand the concept of "Rallying" as it works in the game. You statements about the command and morale differences are off-base, and in fact, are actually reversed. There is better "C&C" under Enhanced with the separate HQ units (who CAN fight, BTW)than with regular SPWAW. More platoon units can be rallied in a turn than before, meaning more combat-ready units available.

Let me explain how those Platoon HQ units work in the Rally part of the game: They provide an extra "layer" of rallying for the units in that formation. That means, my friend, that your units get extra chances to Rally and get back into the fight.

Here's how it works WITHOUT the Platoon HQ unit:

1. Squad 0 is Routed. You try to have the Squad Leader (who is the Platoon Leader) Rally. He fails.
2. If all other squads in the platoon fail their own rally attempts, no more rallying by the platoon.

Here's how it works WITH the Platoon HQ unit:

1. Squad 1 is Routed. You try to have the Squad Leader Rally. He fails.
2. The Platoon HQ Leader attempts to Rally. Success or Failuer, depending on the roll.
3. If the Platoon Leader succeeds, and one of the other squads fails their own rally attempt, he tries for them. Again, maybe Success, maybe Failure.
4. This can be repeated until the Platoon Leader fails a check. If lucky, you could get an entire platoon rallied from Pinned status to Ready and move off into the fight.

The Platoon HQ did not typically fight right up front with the squads. The Platoon Leader, Platoon Sgt, and Radioman/Messengers remained a few meters behind the deployed squads, ready to C&C their area.

Historical accuracy is what should drive this game, not "gamey" arcade functions and ways to "beat" the system. But then I suppose that aspect is ignored by many folks who'd rather just "win at any cost" than try to learn something.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 10

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 5:46:34 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

vahauser-

Point 1 - You are correct, it can be done with only 1 FO. However, when a spotter can see his target, artillery is more accurate and more effective. Pushing FO's forward where they can see their targets pays off, and rewards having a couple extra. I always push several forward towards the enemy, sometimes attaching them to scout units and such.

Point 2 - I have a problem with PltHQ's also, especially in formations where they do not get the special abilities of their men (paratroopers, etc). In your example of the purchase of Sov Marines, were the unit stats (experience, morale, leadership) set to the same number in standard and ENH? If not, that will skew the results. Also, having Plt HQ's should help morale and command, because of the unit class, not hurt it because of more units.

I did not like the idea of Plt HQ's being clearly labeled, tiny units when the OOB project voting was going on, and voted NO. The majority did not, so they were added into alot of formations and nations. I would like to see them applied equally across every nation, or no nation. They are historically acurate for the most part though, which is why they are included in ENH. We did try for as much accuracy as possible. This will not please players like your friend who appear to want bang for his buck, with less historical accuracy. I like both styles sometimes myself. Historical can get old quickly, as can arcadish play.

Remember to check the unit stats, as I think they went up in ENH, and would change the price with TT ON.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 11

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 5:47:12 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

Flash submitted before me, and probably explains it better (as usual)

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 12

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 5:47:31 PM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45
I haven't seen that many WW II TOE's for artillery units, but one thing that has aways kind of puzzled me, is that I thought that most US and British batteries consisted of 6 guns (with the guns divided into two 3 gun firing platoons) instead of 4. Was the 4 gun battery adopted because of weapon slot limits in the game?

Actually the Brit onboard battery did consist of three guns in Version 1.
someone with knowledge of Brit formations said it should be four

_____________________________

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 13

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 6:08:56 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

Kev,

I do agree with vahauser on the Plt HQs relative weak combat ability, and I also agree with your point on them not being primarily combatants. I think a pleasant compromise would be making the PHQ have 2-4 more men than a standard squad of whatever type of infantry they command, and making them replace one of the squads. This would represent the Plt Commander and his small staff traveling with one of his squads, which I think they did most of the time, did they not? So an infantry platoon (US) might look like this:

14-16 man Plt HQ w/ typical squad armament
12 man squad w/ typical squad armament
12 man Heavy Infantry w/ typical HI armament.

The only problem I see is the Plt HQ class not automatically getting the special abilities of the infantry they are with, which it won't as the game is now.

Thoughts?

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 14

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 6:50:32 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Goblin,
I just set the troop quality to 70 (base encyclopedia cost) in the editor and bought the marines.� So the unit values are base values for both standard SPWAW and enhanced SPWAW.

Flashfyre,
A)� Not BS.� 99 formations is still more than 80 formations.� Which means more formation HQs.� Which means more rally chances.� Which means more effective morale for the 99-formation standard SPWAW force and weaker effective morale for the 80-formation enhanced SPWAW force.
B)� Okay, enhanced SPWAW platoon HQs do, in fact, have a minimal combat ability.� Perhaps three Soviet marine platoon HQs could stand up to one Soviet marine squad (probably need four or five, though).
C)� There is a way to test this.� Go into the enhanced�editor.� Set up a meeting engagement, June 1942,�in the editor Soviet vs. Soviet.� Set the troop quality to 70 for both sides (base encyclopedia value).� Player1 buys 80 formations of Soviet marines.� Player2 buys 50 marine platoons and 49 ski sniper sections.� Player2 force will have 100 formations and 398 units (1 more than the 397 they should have--this will be addressed shortly).� Now comes the Player2 conversion to standard SPWAW. Convert�one Player2 marine�unit into a fort and go stick it off in a corner somewhere facing off the mapedge so it cannot participate in the test.� That gets rid of the extra Player2 unit.� Now, using the unit-data feature,�convert the other 396 Player2 units�(not counting the A0)�to standard SPWAW marines (standard SPWAW marines have different weapons and ammo, hence the need to convert the unit data).� Now use the "assign current unit to new HQ" feature and even out the formations so they all have 4 units each.� Now, line them up on a test map and set the game to computer vs. computer and watch and see what happens.� My money is on Player2's force.� Even better, if you want I can set this scenario up and then email it to whomever wants it so you can try it for yourselves.

< Message edited by vahauser -- 7/23/2006 6:53:14 PM >

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 15

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:00:01 PM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Kev,

I do agree with vahauser on the Plt HQs relative weak combat ability, and I also agree with your point on them not being primarily combatants. I think a pleasant compromise would be making the PHQ have 2-4 more men than a standard squad of whatever type of infantry they command, and making them replace one of the squads. This would represent the Plt Commander and his small staff traveling with one of his squads, which I think they did most of the time, did they not? So an infantry platoon (US) might look like this:

14-16 man Plt HQ w/ typical squad armament
12 man squad w/ typical squad armament
12 man Heavy Infantry w/ typical HI armament.

The only problem I see is the Plt HQ class not automatically getting the special abilities of the infantry they are with, which it won't as the game is now.

Thoughts?

Goblin

Not a bad idea, but would take alot of reworking of formations, especially the mech/motor ones.
one thing....
Everyone seems to think the PLT Hqs are meant to be up front fighting units, which if they are doing that, they are not doing their actual job.
they have weappns to defend themselves if necessary but are mnot meant to be heavy fighting units.

hmmm takes some thinkin' on.

< Message edited by Alby -- 7/23/2006 7:03:40 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 16

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:02:34 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

If one wanted to get REAL realistic, one might consider adding ground FO from the USAAF ala 9th Air Force just prior to Operation Cobra, which (in theory) would give more accuracy to air support,instead of seeing the planes attack the first things they pass over in the order of 1.tanks,2.vehicles,3.guns,4.troops,etc..
But then again, in the ETO it might not be a good idea considering the botched job done at the opening of Operation Cobra when American units were bombed by their own planes WITH the FO on the ground with the troops!
When playing campaign games, maybe a "medic" unit could be used, to somehow get to the same hex as a near depleted squad, saving the squad for its' experience level for future battles??
Don Doom made a nice German Rote Kreuz halftrack, maybe an American Red Cross Jeep could be used??(Don't know how you could handle the risk of being fired at??)..

_____________________________

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 17

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:07:12 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

Cool, vahauser, just checking on the values, thanks.

The Plt HQ class does rally better than the standard '0' unit in a platoon formation (B0, C0, etc), since the standard unit is the same class as any other infantry unit, so Flash is probably right about #1.

I don't like the 'more bang for the buck' line of thought when comparing the 2 versions, since all OOB's were redone. You opponent is likely to have less units also in ENH, or more in standard SPWaW. If you somehow were able to make a game with one force from standard, and one from ENH, it may be unbalanced, but since both players are using the same version, then you both have less bang or more bang, depending on which version you use. Since the purchase points may be set, you can set them to buy the exact same thing that you could in standard, and so could your opponent.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 18

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:09:25 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby
Not a bad idea, but would take alot of reworking of formations, especially the mech/motor ones.
one thing....
Everyone seems to think the PLT Hqs are meant to be up front fighting units, which if they are doing that, they are not doing their actual job.
they have weappns to defend themselves if necessary but are mnot meant to be heavy fighting units.

hmmm takes some thinkin' on.

I do not think that, but since they are instantly identifiable, and very small, they are obvious, easily-killed targets. Blending them with the first squad of a platoon would alleviate the easily killed part, if not the identifiable part.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 19

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:15:20 PM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

Does part of this "problem" come from the conversion of SP3, a platoon based game, to SPWAW, a squad level game?

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 20

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:19:28 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

vahauser

Why are you focusing so much on number of formations/units? This isn't an RTS game where you "win" by overwhelming your opponent. I play at the battalion level; 3-4 companies, with support. I have plenty of forces, I never exceed the Limits, and I practice tactics and doctrine.

One problem with your "test" battle: the AI does not use the Platoon HQ units as it should. So of course these units are going to be sent into the fray like any other infantry unit, and get slaughtered. Which is NOT what they were designed for. The AI also tends to Rally one unit at a time until it fails, starting with the "0" unit and working down. If that happens, the benefit from the HQ units is lost. As a human, though, you can choose which unit to Rally, and in what order. Experience will show that the best way to do this is to: 1) Rally the Platoon HQ unit, if necessary, to at least Pinned status, 2) start with the "1" squad or whichever unit needs rallying and make Rally checks until the Squad Leader fails and the Platoon HQ succeeds ONCE, then 3) move to the next unit in the platoon and repeat #2. Once all the subordinate squads have failed and the Platoon Leader has made his attempt(s), if the HQ has not yet failed, continue rallying the subordinates until he does so. In this fashion, making only one check at a time per unit, it is possible for a HUMAN player to completely rally an entire 6+ unit formation, if the Rally number is high enough and the dice rolls are favorable. And I'll take that over having a few more units to throw at my opponent.

Enhanced SPWAW Mod was built to make for better PBEM and Online play; while the AI benefits from some of the changes made, it is still pretty predictable, and can be defeated fairly easy. Try your "test" as Human-vs-Human and see who does better. In a current PBEM I'm playing, as India vs Italians in 1941, ifiti weren't for the Platoon HQs, most of my forces and my opponents would be retreating. As it is, we are sort of stalemated, neither one entirely able to advance. But our troopers are still fighting...

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 21

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:25:21 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Goblin,

Your point is well taken.

My point is this (not directed at you, Goblin, just using this space to state my point in general).
This is a GAME and not an historical simulation. If this were an historical simulation it would be simultaneous movement in real time, and not turn-based. And as a GAME, I play it as a game. I've been playing Steel Panthers since it first came out in the mid-90s, I've played thousands of games and hundreds of campaigns of Steel Panthers over the years (in every version). It is my favorite game of all time. However, when I play SPWAW, I want to play Steel Panthers and not "Chain of Command". I want to fight combat with combat units. And since the game limits me to 400 units and 100 formations, I don't want to see a clutter of HQs and FOs all over the place just because the OOBs force me to waste valuable unit/formation space on them. Any version of the game that minimizes "non-combatant clutter" I am all in favor of. That is my point.

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 22

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 7:48:54 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Flashfyre,

In the case of the Soviet marines I note that the platoon HQs only move 9 and the marines themselves move 11. Thus, the marines will leave their HQ behind. What good is an HQ if it can't keep up?

And since enhanced SPWAW HQ units are clearly labeled as such, they might as well have big red targets painted on them for extinction. I'd rather have the anonymous formation leaders provided by standard SPWAW that can't be singled out for elimination even if it means that I suffer a rally degradation. And even if you change the labeling of the HQ units, their small size gives them away. I think that the little they add to the game is just not worth the valuable unit/formation space they take up.

I understand what you are saying. But even in a PBEM (human vs. human) format, I'm not happy with having to cut combat units to make room for what I see as ridiculous platoon HQs units. I play huge battles all the time. I am constantly running into the unit/formation limits in the games I play. There are other people that play big battles, too. Enhanced SPWAW does not do players like me much good. I'm just not enthused about having to cut panthers from my battle force because of some d***ed rifle platoon HQs the OOBs force me to buy.

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 23

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/23/2006 11:48:18 PM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

I am not going to get into the debate over the Plt HQ, but I believe you are wrong about the useless FO units. What happens if that single FO unit you bought is out of contact? Or what happens if your HQ is suppressed along with the single FO unit you have on the board? Hordes of FO's on the board is not what I am advocating, but even if you are playing with C&C off in an average scenario I believe at least three FO units are needed to allow for being out of contact, possible destruction of one or more of them, and also suppression. Then also rarity will limit the amount of certain type units available if that is a problem for you. A game also does not require real time movement to be historical in nature. I find the real time movement games to be much more unrealistic because after you set a course of action for a unit, it is extremely hard to change that course of action in time to react to enemy actions. Under the IGUG system, you have a choice of what your reaction would be when coming under fire which is out of your hands in real time movement games like the CM series where the computer controls your units after you give it instructions. The two movement systems, real time movement and IGUG, are both compromises for what actually takes place in a battle.

To take your analogy of useless non-combat units to the extreme, it would seem you are advocating the deletion of all trucks, jeeps, ammo carriers, etc from the OOB's. Each and every unit has a purpose in the game, whether it is to fight, transport, observe, rally, etc. Also by your logic, scout teams and scout patrols are useless because they cannot stand up in combat to an infantry squad. Once again taking your viewpoint to the extreme, this would mean deleting all units less than a squad in size, deleting all vehicles that were not armed with at least one MG, getting rid of the shelters/dugouts that would protect your troops from shellfire, and any other units that could not participate in direct fire actions. Your view of things is fine if all you are wanting is to kill something. But for those of us who like historical accuracy in the game, we like to see how things would have turned out using units as historically accurate as possible.

I generally do not play with C&C on as I think the movement restrictions are not that realistic and that also it takes the initiative of the squad leader out of the picture. But that said I would be all in favor of limiting the number of artillery batteries an FO unit could call for fire from.

Just on aside on the Plt Ldr unit, I like the concept myself but if I had built the unit I would have included the Plt MMG in the unit rather than as a separate unit. My reasoning is that the Plt Ldr or Plt Sgt normally would personally direct the fire of the MMG in action. I have never liked the idea of a separate MMG inside a Plt formation if there was a Plt Ldr unit in the formation. Also an aside on the Plt Sgt, he is not always directly involved in combat, a large part of his duties concern logistic functions in addition to combat. He would be the person sent to the rear for more ammo etc. Also the Plt Sgt is not in the chain of command until the Plt Leader is either killed or incapacitiated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Goblin,

Your point is well taken.

My point is this (not directed at you, Goblin, just using this space to state my point in general).
This is a GAME and not an historical simulation.� If this were an historical simulation it would be simultaneous movement in real time, and not turn-based.� And as a GAME, I play it as a game.� I've been playing Steel Panthers since it first came out in the mid-90s, I've played thousands of games and hundreds of campaigns of Steel Panthers over the years (in every version).� It is my favorite game of all time.� However, when I play SPWAW, I want to play Steel Panthers and not "Chain of Command".� I want to fight combat with combat units.� And since the game limits me to 400 units and 100 formations, I don't want to see a clutter of HQs and FOs all over the place just because the OOBs force me to waste valuable unit/formation space on them.� Any version of the game that minimizes "non-combatant clutter" I am all in favor of.� That is my point.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 24

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/24/2006 12:18:43 AM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Flashfyre,

In the case of the Soviet marines I note that the platoon HQs only move 9 and the marines themselves move 11. Thus, the marines will leave their HQ behind. What good is an HQ if it can't keep up?

And since enhanced SPWAW HQ units are clearly labeled as such, they might as well have big red targets painted on them for extinction. I'd rather have the anonymous formation leaders provided by standard SPWAW that can't be singled out for elimination even if it means that I suffer a rally degradation. And even if you change the labeling of the HQ units, their small size gives them away. I think that the little they add to the game is just not worth the valuable unit/formation space they take up.

I understand what you are saying. But even in a PBEM (human vs. human) format, I'm not happy with having to cut combat units to make room for what I see as ridiculous platoon HQs units. I play huge battles all the time. I am constantly running into the unit/formation limits in the games I play. There are other people that play big battles, too. Enhanced SPWAW does not do players like me much good. I'm just not enthused about having to cut panthers from my battle force because of some d***ed rifle platoon HQs the OOBs force me to buy.

Actually the speed of those Marines is too high, thanks for catching that.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 25

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/24/2006 1:20:22 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Dragoon45

Most of the Platoons in Enhanced do not have "platoon MGs" anymore; squads have LMGs, of course, but the MMG/HMG support weapons are kept in separate formations attached to the company. This is in keeping with the doctrine of the day (observed to one extent or another by all armies involved) that MGs were battalion support units, along with mortars, and were kept in Support/Weapons Companies. The units were allocated to the battalion as needed; MGs were usually assigned to flank protection when the battalion was on the advance, for example. So we removed them from direct platoon control, making them company assets to be used where the player wants. They don't suffer from "out-of-contact" status because their parent platoon has moved beyond the 3-hex range; they can be concentrated in an area and benefit from the rally ability of their formation leader. In some nations, the Platoon HQ is the only unit in the platoon that has an automatic weapon; Indian Army doctrine for the early years called for 1 Vickers-Berthier LMG to be assigned each platoon, not each squad.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 26

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/24/2006 1:51:06 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Alby,
The airborne infantry of all nations move 10 and all their platoon HQs move 9, so the issue remains about the HQs not being to keep up with the troops they are supposed to be supporting in this case.

Dragoon45,
I can play a 20,000 point battle with 100 formations and 400 units and get by just fine with a single FO. As I stated towards the top of this thread, the real culprit here is everybody plays these days with Command Control OFF. Even I (a die-hard Command Control ON player if there ever was one) play with it turned OFF these days because nobody will play with me unless I agree to turn it OFF. And I don't even remember the last time I've had my FO get suppressed, much less destroyed, in a game. I won't say it's never happened, but I sure can't remember if it ever has or not. So, yes, you can indeed play effectively with a single FO as long as Command Control is turned OFF. With Command Control ON, however, that is a whole different story not worth addressing because nobody plays that way anymore.

As far as my comment regarding the relative value of units in the game, I stand by what I said about platoon HQs and multiple FOs. They have little relative value. The game can do just fine without them (well, the platoon HQs for sure, and I admit to the need of having the option of purchasing an FO, but the platoon HQs are not optional and that is a source of discontent to me). However, the game cannot function well at all without trucks and halftracks and scouts and ammo carriers, etc. There is a difference between augmentation (or enhancement) of my forces to make my force more effective in battle, and superfluity of units that simply dilute my force and weaken it with un-necessary units.

I'm very competitive. When I play SPWAW, I play for keeps and I spend hours and days putting together the most powerful combat force I can. I cut every single scrap of fat away to get a lean killing machine. My battlegroups are never "historical", they are designed with only one objective--winning the game. Every single one of my 100 formations and 400 units is wrestled with to obtain the most effective and deadly battlegroup I can make it. If a unit isn't a good killer, or a unit that can't make my killers into better killers, then it gets cut. If I had the option in enhanced SPWAW v2, I promise you that no platoon HQs would ever make the cut (as things stand today). Unfortunately, enhanced SPWAW v2 doesn't give me that option. But who knows? Maybe someday an enhanced SPWAW v3 will be made available that will make platoon HQs either optional or somehow more useful (in my opinion, either case would be a welcome improvement). I will hope for that day.

GENERAL COMMENT, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
If you have taken the time to read all the verbiage I've posted in this thread, I want you to know that just because I am not happy with platoon HQs (and I'm really not happy about them!), it doesn't mean that I'm the kind of guy who throws the baby out with the bath water. There are only two major complaints I have about enhanced SPWAW v2 that I can think of after several days of intense playing. You already know about one of them, and the other has to do with what I consider to be a major regression back in time (a big step backwards in the development of SPWAW in my opinion) regarding fire control values. But that is a topic for another thread and I won't get into that here. Anyway, there is a lot I like about enhanced SPWAW v2. If I didn't think it was any good, then I would already have tossed it and be back playing SPWAW 8.40. So, just because you've read about my negative opinion about a single aspect of enhanced SPWAW v2, I still believe that there is a lot to like about it. Enough so to still be messing with it. I respect the time and effort many people put into it and I plan to give it as fair a playing experience as I can.

--Victor

< Message edited by vahauser -- 7/24/2006 2:01:10 AM >

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 27

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/24/2006 1:57:51 AM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,
The airborne infantry of all nations move 10 and all their platoon HQs move 9, so the issue remains about the HQs not being to keep up with the troops they are supposed to be supporting in this case.

--Victor

heheh that way they stay behind where they belong...

just kidding ya
Its an issue being discussed.
perhaps Paras move too fast

hey do you play with "UNIT COMM"
off or on??
if it is on, you may need more than one FO to keep your arty "in contact"

< Message edited by Alby -- 7/24/2006 2:01:42 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 28

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/24/2006 2:19:14 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Those "fire control" issues are set back to the numbers that were originally programmed in (by the Matrix team), not the fantasy numbers that crept in over the years. The game engine is based on SPIII, a modern-day game. FC ratings had to account for Abrams tanks with laser rangefinders and onboard fire control computers. Not so for WWII; trouble is, the numbers still worked, but they shouldn't have. They are too great for the WWII-era of tanks, and as such have been reduced to numbers more in keeping with the era. No more "first-shot, first kill" for the Tigers, all you Tiger kiddies. No more "uber-units" scoring kill after kill at 40+ hexes.

FC gives an automatic To Hit bonus of 5x the FC rating; a unit with a 9 FC gets an automatic +40 To Hit. Realistic for WWII tanks with no computers and only optical glass sights? Not in my book...

_____________________________

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 29

RE: HQ units and FO's - 7/24/2006 2:59:49 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Alby,
Heh, I don't want to divulge tactical secrets about how I employ my artillery, but I do indeed play with Unit Comm ON. The only settings I turn OFF in my Realism Panel: Historical Ratings OFF, Command Control OFF, Reduced Squads OFF. Everything else (including Limited, not Reduced, Ammo) ON.

Flashfyre,
I played SPIII for several years, so I am quite familiar with how attack helicopters owned that game. Heh. Anyway, my disgruntled argument batteries are drained right now, and it will take a day or two to recharge them so I can address my issues concerning fire control. Rain check for now, ok?

--V

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 30