Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core Forces in Campaigns

 
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 >> My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core Forces in Campaigns Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core Force... - 1/23/2007 4:05:29 PM   
No New Messages
vahauser
Matrix Elite Guard



Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
The way I see it, just about ANY core can be considered "historical" given the kinds of campaigns SPWAW handles.

It is very historical to view SPWAW in terms of customized small fighting groups that had individualized TOEs. Most all historical independent companies/battalions/regiments for all nations had widely varying TOEs, and those TOEs changed all the time even when such independent forces had an "established" TOE.

It's the nature of small independent formations to be based more on the needs of the current mission at hand in an 'ad hoc' manner than to have any set TOE.

Certainly, companies and battalions and regiments within traditional "line" combat divisions had standardized TOEs. No debate there. But even within "line" combat divisions, 'ad hoc' task force/kampfgruppe formations were created all the time and also even the 'line' divisions had other formations attached to them on a regular basis.

To me, this all means that a player's core can historically justified to be pretty much anything from battle to battle (since campaign battles occur once every 30+ days (and a lot can change in a month or two in the life of a small independent formation)), representing the 'ad hoc' nature of small independent task force/kampfgruppe formations. As such, I see no problem at all with a player turning his BAR squads into armored engineers between battles (for instance). Stuff like that happened all the time in the kinds of small formations we deal with in SPWAW.

Clearly, if a player wants to think of his core as part of a 'line' combat division, then following the strict guidelines of the OOBs is perfectly reasonable.

But it is just as historically reasonable for a player to think of his core as an 'ad hoc' independent task force/kampfgruppe which is constantly being reorganized to meet the special demands of the current mission.

Indeed, I think a strong case can be made that SPWAW is actually MORE suited to the 'ad hoc' task force kind of core than to the 'part-of-line-division' kind of core.


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/23/2007 4:46:45 PM   
No New Messages
Goblin
Moderator



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

I do think most historical gamers don't have an issue with most core forces. Any issue arises when you see someone post, "Dude! My core of 24 Sturmtigers and 12 Thor mortars, supported by 16 railway guns, and 10 Maus is pWn1nG!!!".



Goblin

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 2
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/23/2007 5:16:56 PM   
No New Messages
Alby
Matrix Legion of Merit



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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

"Dude! My core of 24 Sturmtigers and 12 Thor mortars, supported by 16 railway guns, and 10 Maus is pWn1nG!!!".



Goblin

How did you know what my next core force was gonna be????


_____________________________



(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 3
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/23/2007 6:06:02 PM   
No New Messages
Goblin
Moderator



Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
Remind me to make sure I get the Germans when we play them.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 4
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/23/2007 8:53:16 PM   
No New Messages
vahauser
Matrix Elite Guard



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

What was the last campaign you played and what was your core?

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 5
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/23/2007 9:42:33 PM   
No New Messages
Goblin
Moderator



Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
Normandy Gold, see my thread at the Depot.



Goblin

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 6
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/23/2007 11:55:50 PM   
No New Messages
FlashfyreSP
Matrix Elite Guard



Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
There is "historical" and then there's "HISTORICAL".

"historical" is when you buy a core force that uses a mix of units that would have been found on the average battlefield, with some room for 'creativity'. An example would be a single panzergenadier company supported by an entire Tiger company; possible, but not probable.

"HISTORICAL" is when you buy a core force that adheres to a TO&E breakdown of a particular regiment. Such as playing the 11th Hussars in 1940 and using only Rolls-Royce and Morris armoured cars, even though Marmon-Herringtons and Daimlers are available.

Most of us, I think, do try to be "historical" rather than "HISTORICAL", and that's why the formations are built the way they are; to allow the construction of custom forces. If they were built strictly HISTORICAL, there'd be no separate platoons and sections; everyone would have to use company formations, and not change them.

So there is always an element of "customization" in any campaign core force.

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 7
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 1:10:34 AM   
No New Messages
KG Erwin
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Yeah, what Flashfyre said. Even my notorious USMC 1942 reinforced battalion core forces aren't completely 100% historical. Having the USS Nimitz offshore providing air cover might be stretching it a bit, but didn't you ever watch "The Final Countdown"?

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 1/24/2007 1:23:00 AM >

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 8
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 1:14:29 AM   
No New Messages
GaryG48
Matrix Recruit


 

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
I absolutely agree, Flash. "I wonder what would it have felt like if (fill in the blank) had or had not been available (whenever) is really the heart of simulation. Some call it alternative history, but most of us just call it fun.

--Gary

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 9
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 1:18:41 AM   
No New Messages
KG Erwin
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryG48

I absolutely agree, Flash. "I wonder what would it have felt like if (fill in the blank) had or had not been available (whenever) is really the heart of simulation. Some call it alternative history, but most of us just call it fun.

--Gary


That's true, Gary. My "Nimitz" example was a joke, but all wargaming IS an exercise in "what-if".

(in reply to GaryG48)
Post #: 10
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 2:20:48 AM   
No New Messages
Alby
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
My core force....
200 or so bankers, farmers, doctors, lawyers, Legends, and adventurers, along with some 18 tubes of various artillery sizes ranging from 6 Lbers up to an 18 lber......oh wait...damn wrong battle again...




_____________________________



(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 11
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 2:26:47 AM   
No New Messages
KG Erwin
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

My core force....
200 or so bankers, farmers, doctors, lawyers, Legends, and adventurers, along with some 18 tubes of various artillery sizes ranging from 6 Lbers up to an 18 lber......oh wait...damn wrong battle again...





Alby, no matter what battle your core is in, we'll still call it "The Alamo Force". I WAS going to adopt that name, but it suits you better.

(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 12
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 2:30:49 AM   
No New Messages
Alby
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
Ain't it so...



_____________________________



(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 13
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 3:10:50 AM   
No New Messages
vahauser
Matrix Elite Guard



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

The way I see it, it is not easy to define what an “average” WW2 battlefield is.

In fact, if somebody were to conduct a survey as to what the “average” WW2 battlefield was, I bet every single person surveyed would give a different answer.

For instance, in the example you posted above, I would have said that the panzergrenadier company was supporting the Tiger company, in which case that situation might be considered pretty typical. Indeed, it is easy to imagine building an entire kampfgruppe around a Tiger company.

I understand that there is a burning desire among some people who play SPWAW to be “historical”. I might go further and say that the word ‘burning’ isn’t a strong enough word. Perhaps ‘all-consuming’ compulsion might be more on target. The reason I started this thread is because I’m interested in discussing what “historical” means.

Personally, since I can’t define what “historical” means in terms of SPWAW, then I adopt a different approach.

For instance, I’ve played Long Long Road many many times. I used to have the stamina to play a whole campaign of Long Long Road in a week or two. Those days are long gone (I can barely play a few turns per week these days), but I am very familiar with that campaign and every battle in it. At the very beginning of that campaign Wild Bill states that, “You’re going to need to choose a balanced force of armor and infantry for the struggles that lie ahead of you.” Well, there is no historical force in the US Army that had a TOE with that balance of armor and infantry on the battalion-scale that Wild Bill has designed his campaign for. So what you end up with is a German-style kampfgruppe. But the issue is deeper than that.

Your American kampfgruppe is going to be called upon to do all sorts of fighting in all kinds of situations and weather and terrain over the course of nearly three campaign years. That’s the challenge that Wild Bill built into his campaign. But a kampfgruppe that worked in 1942-43 might not work at all in 1944-45. The problem is that the game does not give you “historical” TOE changes. The campaign gives you generic “build points” with which you have to repair units, upgrade units, change units, and all on a “use or lose” basis. But there is absolutely NOTHING historical about that. And so the people who have an all-consuming need to be “historical” find themselves in a very un-historical situation.

For example, suppose that after a battle Wild Bill provides you with a few hundred build points. Let’s say that after you repair your units you have around 100 points left. If you don’t spend those points then they are gone forever. The bad news is that the battles are going to get harder because Wild Bill has designed his campaign knowing that your force is supposed to get stronger, so he has made the battles harder to compensate for that. That is good game design. But it is not historical. Not historical at all. Now let’s further suppose that you didn’t have enough points to buy any engineers when you first purchased your core. But now you realize that you need some engineers. Engineers aren’t cheap so you can only afford a couple units. What do you do? If you don’t change some of your existing units now into engineers, then you might not have a good opportunity to do so later. I would be very tempted to take a couple trucks and turn them into halftracks and a couple machinegun and/or bazooka teams and turn them into engineers to ride in those new halftracks.

Now, the people who have an all-consuming compulsion to be “historical” might look down their noses at such “un-historical” behavior on my part. But I claim that the situation that the game put me in to begin with was not historical at all. Quite the opposite in fact. And yet, I needed those engineers. The bazookas/MGs weren’t doing me much good at the time. I either change into engineers or possibly lose the opportunity forever. It is a ridiculous situation the game has put me in. Use them or lose them. How un-historical is that?

And so, I come right back to where I started this thread.




_____________________________


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 14
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 4:15:38 AM   
No New Messages
FlashfyreSP
Matrix Elite Guard



Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
That's the point, Vahauser...you see the Tigers being supported by infantry, I said infantry supported by tanks. In my example, the more "historical" composition would have been a panzergrenadier company and a platoon of Tigers; Tiger battalions were usually not used 'en masse', but were instead used as "independent heavy companies". I refer you to the Tigers in the Mud narrative, by Tiger commander Otto Carius. He gives a good accounting of his time on the Estonia front in 1944-45, facing the Russians, where his company were used as a "fire brigade", shuttled here and there to stop up the holes in the defense line. And many times they did this with less than a full complement of Tigers; in fact, in one engagement, that of Operation Strachwitz, he only had 8 operational Tigers, supporting an entire battalion including PzKpfw IVs.

But that's the beauty of the formation structures in the game: if you want your core to be an entire Tiger company, supported by infantry, you can do it. It's still "historical", because all those elements were available.

But let's take the US force for the Long, Long Road to Victory; if you buy the Combat Team or Group, depending on which version of the game you have, you get a force that, within the bounds of the game structure, is both "historical" and "HISTORICAL".

But it's all up to the player to decide what they want...


_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 15
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 3:58:10 PM   
No New Messages
vahauser
Matrix Elite Guard



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

I think every OOB now has something like ‘Combat Group’ or ‘Task Force’, right?

What criteria were used to decide what units were included and how such ‘Combat Groups’ were to be composed?


_____________________________


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 16
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 4:50:09 PM   
No New Messages
Kuokkanen
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
Just quick question here: since in Mega-Campaigns player can't choose his core force, I would like to know are they "historical" or "HISTORICAL"?

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 17
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 8:01:13 PM   
No New Messages
FlashfyreSP
Matrix Elite Guard



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

ORIGINAL: vahauser

FlashFyre,

I think every OOB now has something like ‘Combat Group’ or ‘Task Force’, right?

What criteria were used to decide what units were included and how such ‘Combat Groups’ were to be composed?



In the case of the US formations, my source for Armoured Divisions was the Osprey Book US Armored Divisions: The European Theater of Operations, 1944-45, by Steven J. Zaloga. It actually covers the development of the armoured divisions from their early beginnings in the 1930s through the end of the war. TO&E charts for the Divisions, Battalions, and Companies; explanation of the "Task Force" and "Combat Group" concepts utilized, and unit histories for all Armoured Divisions, including lists of organic units. These formations in the game are probably the closest to "HISTORICAL" as we can get; there is a limit to the formation slots (10), which means the Task Force in particular is short some of its fighting force.

For others, such as the German Kampfgruppe and the various Soviet ones, the criteria was mainly to put a good mix of "combined arms" units into them, unless the formation was an all-infantry one. I received a lot of confirmation for the Italian Gruppi from Mau Fox and a few other Italian players. So they are probably best described as "historical", because all the units are probable, but I have no definitive evidence that any of them were actually built exactly as I built them.

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 18
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 8:59:34 PM   
No New Messages
Riun T
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
and doesn't this all go back to whether or not u have the "rarity" on?? that bases alot of what u can upgrade to in a long campaign, that full company of tigers wouldn't have been available in the start of the war!!

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 19
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/24/2007 9:05:48 PM   
No New Messages
KG Erwin
Matrix Legion of Merit



Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
I'll chime in on the "Combat Teams", also. For the USMC, I have several of Gordon Rottmann's books on Marine TOEs, so the basic structure of their CTs or Landing Teams as the war progressed is well-documented.

As a matter of fact, their official battalion/company TOEs tended to lean towards decentralized control of fire-support assets in 1944-45. This is why the battalion weapons companies were broken up and the MGs distributed to the rifle companies. The 81mm mortars were retained under battalion control. The ATGs were placed under the regimental weapons companies.


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 20
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/25/2007 10:46:32 AM   
No New Messages
vahauser
Matrix Elite Guard



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

Okay, there are generic battlegroups in each nation’s OOB.

But what about when a player doesn’t want the generic battlegroup?

For example, let’s say I want to play Long Long Road. And let’s say I want to be “historical” (a word which nobody has yet been able to define on this thread).

In this example, let’s say I want to base my core on the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion. The 509th was the premier airborne unit in the US Army and was the unit that airdropped all the way from England to capture the French airfield near Oran (i.e., the very first battle of this campaign). In addition, the 509th conducted a variety of other airdrops during the period covered by Long Long Road, and it also participated in a ground role in a number of other battles (such as the Ardennes in 1944).

In other words, the 509th is a real-life actual historical (as opposed to “historical”) unit that actually took part in a number of the battles covered in Long Long Road. As such, the 509th is a very strong historical (as opposed to “historical”) choice to build a core around for this campaign.

Here is the problem:
#1 You are only given 2,000 build points to start the campaign, and 2,000 points is not enough to form the entire 509th.
#2 Wild Bill specifically states that you will need a combined arms force. Now, since the 509th actually fought in a number of battles as a ground unit, then this is still historically reasonable. But 2,000 points is not a lot of points to start the campaign with.

So, how do you build a core for the Long Long Road based on the 509th? How would you personally do it?


< Message edited by vahauser -- 1/25/2007 10:59:02 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 21
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/25/2007 5:45:52 PM   
No New Messages
FlashfyreSP
Matrix Elite Guard



Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
I wouldn't....because, as you said, the campaign wasn't built with that as a possible core force in mind.

When building a campaign, the designer (or design team) must decide first what kind of core force he campaign will focus on; will it be an all-armour core, following the exploits of a particular tank regiment, or will it be a combined-arms force, along the lines of the Das Reich one, or is it to be mainly paratroops? Once the designer determines this, the scenarios are built accordingly. And a recommended core force is usually listed in the intro text. But that doesn't prevent players from using other forces; however, the campaign may play out easier or harder, depending on the force.

What you suggested about the 509th, that's using an "HISTORICAL" force, one that you will build according to that unit's TO&E. An "historical" possibility would be, and this is purely a suggestion, a company of paratroops and some armour support. As a matter of fact, someone recently started this campaign with a paratroop force; I forget who, but I recall someone posting a DAR about how hard it was to hold the airfield with just infantry.


_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 22
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/27/2007 5:43:32 PM   
No New Messages
Kuokkanen
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
Just quick question here: are forces issued to players in Mega Campaigns "historical" or "HISTORICAL"?

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 23
RE: My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core F... - 1/27/2007 6:13:54 PM   
No New Messages
FlashfyreSP
Matrix Elite Guard



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

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Just quick question here: are forces issued to players in Mega Campaigns "historical" or "HISTORICAL"?


I wouldn't know...I don't play them. My guess is "historical", since the core actually canges depending on your selections.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> My Thoughts Regarding "Historical" Core Forces in Campaigns Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.375