TO&E advice

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TO&E advice

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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> TO&E advice

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TO&E advice - 12/28/2008 9:21:53 PM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

I'm doing a Cuba '62 scenario at 5km/hex and company/battalion level. I'm running into a small problem with scale, specifically in regards to the US Pentomic divisions. Instead of a division having three combat brigades, they have five combined-arms battlegroups of roughly reinforced battalion strength (5 infantry companies, 2 artillery batteries, 1 tank company). They're bigger than battalions, smaller than brigades/regiments.

They don't quite seem to fit with the scenario so far, as they're 2-3 times more powerful than their nearest Soviet or Cuban equivalent, but they're gonna be a massive pain in the ass to break down into company-level units (I have five divisions and four brigades - meaning 33 battlegroups to break down into their component companies, which then might be too small).

Has anyone else done anything in this era at this scale? Advice?

I'm not far enough along to be playtesting yet, as I'm still building up the Cuban/Soviet OOB.

Thanks

< Message edited by hellfish6 -- 12/28/2008 9:22:03 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: TO&E advice - 12/28/2008 10:33:41 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

What you describe isn't necessarily a problem. These uber-units will be able to provoke RBC's fairly easily -- but there's no overwhelming reason the units all have to have the same value.

I have a scenario where some of the divisions are represented with brigades and others with battalions, so some units are 9-25's and others are 3-8's. The divisions organized by battalion remain perfectly useful -- you just stack the battalions if more power is wanted in a particular hex.

You might want to separate out the artillery components, though. As matters stand, the US player wouldn't be able to fire artillery at range at all if the units have non-artillery icons, and even if you go over to 'infantry artillery' icons (cross with a dot in the center), the US will still find combining artillery fire to be difficult -- as infantry will have to stand idle if the artillery is to provide ranged fire support.

You may or may not want that effect.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 2

RE: TO&E advice - 12/28/2008 11:56:55 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

You might consider subdividing the battle group units after deployment; subdivide into 2 or 3 individual units as desired. This can be done in the editor. I�m not real familiar with the technique but there are plenty of others on the board who can provide the details.

This would be much simpler that making the 33 battle group subdivisions that you mentioned.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 3

RE: TO&E advice - 12/29/2008 1:19:47 AM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

Thanks. Currently my pentomic divisions have the following organization:

Divisional HQ
Divisional DISCOM (supply/support)
cavalry squadron
Small GS artillery battalion (6 x 155mm, 6 x 203mm, 4 x Honest John SSMs)
5 x infantry battle groups.

The division's artillery was broken down so that 5 mixed batteries of 105/155s were direct support to the battle groups, hence why I included them in the BG units. The BGs are more or less supposed to operate independently on a nuclear battlefield, and I interpreted the concept to mean that their artillery is theirs. The small GS field artillery battalion is the remainder of the artillery that the division has that wasn't designed to be assigned to the BGs.

I'd thought about subdividing the battlegroups later... right now they're marked as regiments, so they'd subdivide into battalions. Since they're technically just big battalions, do you think it would make more sense to have them be battalions that subdivide into companies?

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 4

RE: TO&E advice - 12/31/2008 4:47:51 AM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

are you having this problem vs. Soviet regiments or battalions? Soviets should probably be organized as regimental combined arms teams.

If you are still looking for TOE info I can point you to some good sources from the US Army. I've been fiddling with a similar era Fulda scenario for two or three years.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to hellfish6)

Post #: 5

RE: TO&E advice - 12/31/2008 5:36:51 AM

hellfish6

Posts: 843
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

Yeah. I gave the Soviets four MRRs (which is what were historically on Cuba) with three MRBs, a tank battalion, recon company and mortar battery each. I also threw in a tank regiment for fun, and a couple smaller units.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1992147

^ Test it out if you'd like.

I found a great source for Soviet TO&Es of the Cold War too:

http://www.armouredacorn.com/orbatrussian1.html

(in reply to Central Blue)

Post #: 6