Map and Unit Scale (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Ecthelion008 -> Map and Unit Scale (8/9/2006 8:32:00 PM)

My philosphy about unit scale to hex size has always been one of "what is the maximum area a unit of that size can occupy and still be able to control it"?

I used to think it was (for frontline combat units):

2.5 km => companies (Western), battalions (Soviet)

5 km => battalions (Western), Regiments (Soviet)

10 - 15 km => regiments/brigades (Western), regiments/divisions (Soviet)

Is this assessment accurate?

I want to know so I can get the best scale for my first brand new scenario.



golden delicious -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/9/2006 8:33:37 PM)

It depends on the scenario. For example, in a lot of situations, you will want battalions across the board even at 2.5km/hex.

Also, you should try to avoid having any units more than one level lower than the standard line unit size. So units which are at that level should be made indivisible by use of the section size icon.



Ecthelion008 -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/9/2006 8:49:30 PM)

I've been thinking about the battalions on 2.5 km thing...

Well a battalion (infantry) has... 200, 300 men?  300 men in a 2.5 km area is sort of packed don't you think?



golden delicious -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/9/2006 9:14:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ecthelion008

I've been thinking about the battalions on 2.5 km thing...

Well a battalion (infantry) has... 200, 300 men?  300 men in a 2.5 km area is sort of packed don't you think?


A battalion tends to be more like 800 men.

A 2.5km hex is 6.25 square kilometres. That's over 1500 acres. Even if we assume the men are all along one edge of the hex, that's 2500 metres, or one less than man every three metres. Of course maybe 200 of those men will be behind the line in mortar detachments, supply echelons or other non-frontline elements.

Now, if you had four or five battalions in that space, that would be densely packed- and it would have a red density light in TOAW (maximum density with no penalty = 68 active defenders).



feldgrau -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/9/2006 10:56:23 PM)

Battalions are best for the 2.5 km/hex scale, IMO.

A German infantry battalion during WWII generally had less than 2.5 km width when attacking, more like 1 km in bad terrain and when less prepared, and a little more, 1.5-2 km in open terrain and when prepared. The armored battalions had even more narrow groupings when attacking. A division should generally defend 8-10 km of frontline.

Russian units during WWII had the following standard width of the formation when defending; battalion: 1.5-2 km, regiment: 4-5 km, division: 10-12 km. The depth of the formation was somewhat lower. Easily defended sections of the front, or where attacks were not expected, the maximum width of a regiment was 15 km, and for a division 30 km.

Examples from WWII, at Rzhev 1942, the front of 120 km had 20 divisions on the German side, and 120 on the Russian side. At Baranow 1945, 60 km frontline was defended by 3 German divisions against 34 attacking Russian divisions.

That was for WWII, which saw large masses of infantry and weapons that generally did not have effect in the km range. Today, for example, the Swedish Army and its battalions (the few that are left...) generally has a higher maximum width when defending, even upwards to 10 km in some cases, but more often around 4 km. When attacking, a battalion should not be grouped wider than 3 km.

/feldgrau



Ecthelion008 -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/10/2006 2:06:12 AM)

I guess this is why I post in this forum.  Fast accurate answers from people who know [&o]

What about tank battalions though?

A 1944 Heer tank battalion could have almost 90 tanks at full.  Is it still realistic to concentrate this sort of force in 2.5 km range?  I realize the Germans probably put more tanks in their battalions than any other army since.  Most modern Western brigades have less than 100 MBTs. 

For 2.5 should the tanks be divided into companies?



feldgrau -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/10/2006 2:33:29 AM)

Gamewise, I am not the one to tell, as I have not played TOAW very long, but when striving for realism, the answer is easy: battalions.

Tanks very seldom fight as individual companies. They almost always act in bigger formations, at least battalion-wise. Added to that, the concentration is very realistic. The "blunt wedge" formation of abattalion had a width of around 1 km, and a depth of around 1.5 km, looking something like this: 
                    /|1
                   / |c
4|\    3|\         \ |o
c| \   c| \    H    \|y
o| /   o| /    Q    /|2
y|/    y|/         / |c
                   \ |o
                    \|y

Each "wedge" and "blunt wedge" company had a width of about 500 m, and the distance in depth between each formation was about the same. The individual "blunt wedge" companies then formed their four platoons in the same way, or "in reverse" if a "wedge" company. This means around 20 tanks in the front line (1st and 2nd coy), then another 30 in "company reserve" (1st and 2nd coy) right behind the front tanks and then another 50 in the 3rd and 4th coy some way back. 100 tanks on 1,000 x 1,500 m.

EDIT: As the equipment density penalty for 2.5 km/hex starts already at 68 vehicles, this seems to cause a problem. But splitting battalions in companies and just using one or two companies per 2.5 km frontline is not what was done in real life.

/feldgrau



golden delicious -> RE: Map and Unit Scale (8/10/2006 5:11:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feldgrau

EDIT: As the equipment density penalty for 2.5 km/hex starts already at 68 vehicles,


Sure- but exceeding this by 50% isn't really a problem, especially if one is on the attack. One can perfectly well have an armoured battalion and a mechanised infantry battalion in the same hex.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625