Paras don't help combined arms? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided



Message

Tom Grosv -> Paras don't help combined arms? (6/23/2007 2:31:47 PM)

I was surprised to see that when I attacked a region in SU with 1 TB, 2 Armour, 1 Arty and 1 Para against 1 Inf and 1 Arty I did not get combined bonus. I can only think that Paras don't equate to Infantry for this rule, even when they fight as regular infantry (ie not dropping out of the sky). Is this right? Why?



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/23/2007 8:55:57 PM)

Your observation is correct. Whether it is "right" is open to discussion. It was brought up some time ago by Christian, and my recollection is that no explanation/opinion was ever provided from Joel.

There is another problem right now, however. Airborne units do not count as infantry for combined arms, but militia DO count as infantry. I have observed this in a game and meant to look into it, but this thread prompted me to check the code. Indeed it is true, and this is definitely not right.

Strictly speaking, from the manual (page 73), neither airborne nor militia should count.

I would propose that a change be made so that airborne qualifies as infantry for combined arms, and militia does not qualify as infantry for combined arms.



christian brown -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/24/2007 8:02:49 AM)

As WanderingHead mentions above, I've argued this case before....let me restate the points here.....

1. The Historical Record.
The Soviet Union raised something like 2 entire corps of paratroops, which were never employed as an airborne force, though they acquitted themselves admirably as ground troops.
Germany retained significant airborne forces until the end of the war, using them as elite ground troops, no large airdrops or landings were attempted after the invasion of Crete in 1941.

2. Game Rules
The fact that PARA units can fight in exactly the same way in every regard (except for purposes of CAM)
as INF units (they immediately reap the benefit of all INF tech improvements) is one of the strongest arguments in favor of making PARA units capable of being counted toward obtaining CAM.

3. Production Encouragement

Let's face it, most PARA units are rarely, often never used in airborne ops, at least giving them the ability to affect CAM will be an incentive to build them; they are interesting, expensive units that add to the richness of the game.

Closing Note. An invalid point:
Paratroops are lightly equipped, lacking both organic artillery and armor, they cannot take the place of regular infantry as part of a combined arms force.
Rebuttal:
The very fact that they must be used with MECH and ART units, among other requirements, negates this argument. Besides this, as is mentioned in point 2 above, the PARA unit is the exact equal of INF in combat (except when using the airborne capability or for CAM.)

I can see no reason to exclude these units from the CAM equation and am equally sure the code change would be very easy to make.

V/r,
Christian



Avatar47 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/24/2007 2:56:29 PM)

I concur with Christian. As long as they aren't paradropping, they can be used as INF for CAM. And militia could have been used as INF? All those missed opportunities....



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/24/2007 8:16:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Avatar47
I concur with Christian. As long as they aren't paradropping, they can be used as INF for CAM. And militia could have been used as INF? All those missed opportunities....


Should airborne only count if they are not dropped? Seems reasonable to me, and pretty easy to include that check in the combined arms code.



Forwarn45 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/24/2007 8:41:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
Should airborne only count if they are not dropped? Seems reasonable to me, and pretty easy to include that check in the combined arms code.



That sounds right. Additionally, I'd be inclined to continue to let militia count for the combined arms bonus - although I don't have a strong preference either way.



christian brown -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/24/2007 9:23:43 PM)

Not that anyone asked for it (my opinion!) but here it is......

Combined Arms forces typically operate closely together.......I think the nature of airborne operations (far behind front lines, out of contact with friendly forces) should exclude Para units from the CAM equation when airdropped.

Militia should not count toward CAM because of the level of quality of troops.......the ability to act as a combined arms force implies a high level of coordination, communication and training....the thought that WWII era Italian or Rumanian militia would be able to closely communicate and keep up with German artillery, air and armored forces in some sort of coordinated assault is.........preposterous. I don't even want to go into talking about the other nations' militia because there is (IIRC) no way to distinguish between the nationalities' militia units with the current code.....so I'd say just exclude them all from the CAM equation.

Thanks for your time.



Forwarn45 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/24/2007 9:32:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown
the thought that WWII era Italian or Rumanian militia would be able to closely communicate and keep up with German artillery, air and armored forces in some sort of coordinated assault is.........preposterous.


The quality issue and coordination is why I can see going the other way on this. And generally, I think you have a good point. Although, from what I have read about the desert campaign - Rommel did a pretty good job coordinating with the Italians. This may have been more of the exception than the rule, however.



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/25/2007 12:16:39 AM)

I feel strongly that militia should not count.

The written rules exclude militia, and I given the direct linkage of airborne to infantry I can only imagine that the airborne exluded either as an oversite or because it was thought that they shouldn't participate if dropped.

So I'll try to convince Joel to

1) exclude militia
2) include airborne, but only when not dropped

I think that is intuitive enough (heck, I somehow doubt that anyone even knew militia could do it before).



Lebatron -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/25/2007 2:13:43 PM)

I agree both 1 and 2 should be changed. There's a lack of consensus on item 1, but I think it would be best to add this one too. If only to make the campaign in North Africa a little harder for the Axis. That is, force the Axis player to use both Inf and Arm to supplement the Italian Mil to get CAM.



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/25/2007 9:56:16 PM)

Considering that it only takes 1 infantry to satisfy the CA requirement, it seems very reasonable to me. It doesn't work against heavy militia deployments, just 100% militia deployments.

BTW - please not that I would also assert this the other way, i.e. it would require at least 1 infantry/airborne for the defender to nullify CA, militia would not count torwards nullifying CA.



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/25/2007 11:10:25 PM)

out of curiousity, who was aware that militia could take the place of infantry to give CA?

I was not aware of it until a few weaks ago, when I was surprised to see CA in a particular combat.



Lebatron -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/25/2007 11:54:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

BTW - please not that I would also assert this the other way, i.e. it would require at least 1 infantry/airborne for the defender to nullify CA, militia would not count torwards nullifying CA.



I agree here too.

Since your curious, I was under the impression that Inf/Mil/AirB were all considered the same for CAM. There is a place in the text files where they are considered to be a group, so that's why I thought so. I didn't know until now that Airborne didn't work for CAM, and I would have never noticed because I never use them alone in a standard attack.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/26/2007 5:56:06 AM)

Yes, they are grouped for 'target selection'. So I thought the same thing...that they were grouped for CAM as well. I never attacked with just Paras as the infantry component, so I never noticed that they didnt provide the bonus.

For consistancy, I think they should all provide the bonus. Yes, I understand the issue with Militia, but its rarely going to matter and its a easier to just remember that infantry (including its sub-types) provides the modifier.

But either which way honestly wouldnt bother me....I see it as something that is pretty rarely going to occur and probably not worth the changes (which inevitably give the potential to break something else).



Forwarn45 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/26/2007 7:27:52 AM)

Same here - I assumed infantry, militia, or paratroopers all worked the same way for combined arms. I just didn't have any situations where the only one of these three present was paratroopers.



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/26/2007 8:54:42 AM)

interesting that others thought so differently.

I do think it matters. The Russian "all militia in the early years" strategy is good, and perfectly reasonable, but getting CA out of it doesn't seem to make sense. Requiring some infantry to accompany Italian militia in the Med makes sense. Since it only requires ONE infantry unit (even if embedded with 15 militia), it seems like a pretty low bar.

When I surprisedly got CA with militia while I was playing Russia, I truly felt that I didn't deserve it and had the guilty feeling that I was taking advantage of a bug!

I'm gonna wait a bit and see what other comments are generated before finalizing, but I'm still inclined to remove mil from the equation. A change is required to fix airborne anyway. Christian, Lebatron and I all seemed to agree on militia pretty strongly, I assume Avatar47 is on board since he's as surprised as I was, and the rest seem more ambivalent than committed (forgive me if I am wrong in this interpretation!).



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/26/2007 8:57:06 PM)

Oh dont get me wrong, I dont mind that Militia lose the ability per se, but only that it wouldnt be worth a change just to 'fix' that. If you are going to be making changes anyways, then that is less of an issue.

The only issue left is the one of consistancy. Militia/Paras/Inf will all be treated as 'Infantry' for one purpose, but not for another. While that doesnt bother me personally, I can see it confusing players who dont frequent the forums etc.



christian brown -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/26/2007 9:35:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
The only issue left is the one of consistancy. Militia/Paras/Inf will all be treated as 'Infantry' for one purpose, but not for another. While that doesnt bother me personally, I can see it confusing players who dont frequent the forums etc.


Hmmm, I think that the targeting priorities (I assume that's what you're referring to here) are actually more arcane a subject than the one addressed here, this is just an opinion, but I'd suspect that many players are totally unaware that MIL, PARA and INF are considered the same for targeting purposes and the consistency issue is better addressed by changing the CAM rules. Just my 2 cents......thanks for your input.

V/r



MrQuiet -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/27/2007 12:26:45 AM)

I had no idea that Mil could be used in place of inf for Combined arms mod.
I had assumed paras on ground assault would cover the infantry requirement but never ran into the situation or tested it.

My opinion is that Mil should not count as inf requirement for the CA mod but paras should.

-MrQuiet



Tom Grosv -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/27/2007 12:37:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

My opinion is that Mil should not count as inf requirement for the CA mod but paras should.

-MrQuiet


My vote is with MrQuiet



BoerWar -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/27/2007 2:33:39 AM)

First, the combined arms benefit is for the whole force. I think an army formation composed of armor, artillery and air going on the offensive would be better off for having foot soldiers tagging along, even if they were poorly trained militia. They still can spot the guy with the bazooka waiting to get a shot at the tank's rear armor and flush out enemy positions for air-ground and artillery strikes.

Second, these units represent such huge formations that even the weaker militia units would probably have some useful units attached.

Finally, I think the same argument that Christian made for allowing Paras could be made for militia. They perform the same functions as infantry; unfortunately just not as well. In the game, their penalty for that is, well, they're militia. They get less die rolls to hit and don't survive as well. Giving them a +3 on the die roll still doesn't make them equal to infantry.

The advantage in combined arms is that you have ground pounders available to act as the eyes and ears for and protect the flanks of the armor and artillery. Militia units can still perform that function; just not as well as infantry or paras.

My vote would be to allow all infantry like units (Inf, Airborne, and militia) to act as infantry for the purposes of determining combined arms advantage.



Tom Grosv -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/27/2007 2:47:20 PM)

Gosh, I feel like such a tart - immediately after saying I agree with MrQuiet that Mil should not count for MA, BoerWar makes such a good counter-argument I find myself reconsidering. Ultimately I don't think I really mind either way concerning Mil, just as long as paras do get CA on a ground attack.



wawawd -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/29/2007 5:30:00 AM)

At this level, you could make convincing arguments both ways. But I am against allowing militia for combined arms.



pzgndr -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (6/30/2007 3:03:01 PM)

quote:

First, the combined arms benefit is for the whole force. I think an army formation composed of armor, artillery and air going on the offensive would be better off for having foot soldiers tagging along, even if they were poorly trained militia. They still can spot the guy with the bazooka waiting to get a shot at the tank's rear armor and flush out enemy positions for air-ground and artillery strikes.

Second, these units represent such huge formations that even the weaker militia units would probably have some useful units attached.

Finally, I think the same argument that Christian made for allowing Paras could be made for militia. They perform the same functions as infantry; unfortunately just not as well. In the game, their penalty for that is, well, they're militia. They get less die rolls to hit and don't survive as well. Giving them a +3 on the die roll still doesn't make them equal to infantry.


I have a few comments. Per the manual, Militia are poorly-trained, poorly-equipped infantry. Their only saving grace is that they’re very inexpensive to produce. Militia units that have become Veteran or Elite will be converted to a normal Infantry unit at the end of the player’s turn.

Being poorly-trained and poorly-equipped, by definition here, militia cannot be thought of as being capable of conducting combined arms offensive operations. Yes they can tag along, but that doesn't exactly mean they qualify for a bonus. Let them get converted to normal infantry first and then qualify for a bonus. Paras on the other hand are normal infantry, except on a turn of airdrop, and are trained and equipped for combined arms offensive operations. So it makes sense that they qualify for a bonus.

For militia, since they must be doing something to become Veteran or Elite, perhaps consider 2-3 of them as a minimum requirement for qualifying for a bonus? As BoerWar stated, militia would probably have some useful units attached, so maybe give them partial credit. But a single militia tagging along hardly qualifies.



Lebatron -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/3/2007 11:12:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

...perhaps consider 2-3 of them as a minimum requirement for qualifying for a bonus?


As stated above this would do little to curb the Russian mass militia strat. In other words, if they build hoards of them they will still get CAM without using any real infantry. I just don't like the sound of that.



christian brown -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/4/2007 3:51:29 AM)

Gentlemen,
Without getting wordy here, I would like there to be a a somewhat improved consensus as regards the CAM issue (the better to convince Joel that the code change is worth while - clearly he husbands resources for changes that impact the way the game is played in a meaningful way ONLY.)
It would appear that everyone agrees that Paratroops ought to count toward the CAM equation, that issue need no longer be stressed (thanks everybody!)

An unfortunate byproduct of this thread has been a controversy regarding MIL units' acceptability concerning CAM qualification...........

As we all know, the experience of the Second World War showed all nations how a combination of different combat arms (for purposes of this game, we are speaking of units of armor, artillery, ground-strike capable aerial forces and the "Queen of Battle.") The unique way in which these units were formed into cohesive strike forces made a very potent and destructive tool for the attacker. It is most difficult to find a parallel of this sort of tight cohesion unless we compare it to the armies of Napoleon or perhaps, Frederick. Even with these examples in mind, the utterly disrupting influence (more more so than say, the Confederate cavalry of Nathan Bedford Forest) of airpower makes for a new dynamic entirely. Of a modern combined arms force we speak of units of differing strengths and weaknesses being used in their OPTIMUM role as the situation dictates. Hitting the rear echelon (airpower) to ease the clearing of a built-up area (infantry) in order to enable swifter forces to exploit a weakness (mechanized) while most of these operations are supported by artillery is a perfect example of modern, combined-arms warfare.

Now frankly, who among us will rationally argue that militia forces are/were ever capable of this time-sensitive, well coordinated type of attack? These units lack sufficient radios, training, and above all "offensive spirit" required of members of a combined arms force. There is a reason Gary did not include this modifier as a possible bonus to the defense........

While a good, healthy debate is always welcome (to me at any rate) there comes a time when whim and fancy must be reconciled with honesty and fact. A few tiny tactical examples of a volkssturm unit working well with some panzers and a few 88s is NOT ENOUGH to justify a modifier that effects a force so massive that it occupies an entire region on the AWD map.

IMO, a historical simulation that strives for realism (as abstracted as it sometimes is in GGWAW: AWD) cannot allow militia units to be counted toward CAM eligibility.

The fact that the official rules as published by 2x3 do NOT support the use of non-infantry supported milita clearly shows the true intent of the developers.

My thanks to those of you who have spent the time to read my argument (and sorry if I was too wordy, lol!)

A+










Avatar47 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/4/2007 4:57:38 PM)

This is a game, with balancing issues. I'm not really in favour of what's more historical than what makes for better game balance. Allowing militia to initiate a CAM bonus is unacceptable to me, and would throw the game off balance, probably in favour of the USSR, as their general lack of trained inf at the beginning of barba allows the german player to take more risks. And imo, the german player needs all he can get against an experienced allied player.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/4/2007 11:43:59 PM)

quote:

 Allowing militia to initiate a CAM bonus is unacceptable to me, and would throw the game off balance, probably in favour of the USSR, as their general lack of trained inf at the beginning of barba allows the german player to take more risks. And imo, the german player needs all he can get against an experienced allied player.


I believe they give the bonus NOW. So its certainly not going to throw game balance off.

This is such a minor issue that I can believe that people are worried about it. Its been out for what, a year now? And people are just figuring out that Paras dont give the modifier? That means that the situation is EXTREMELY rare at best. Ditto for Militia.

Personally, I just want some sort of consistancy in the rules. If Militia/Paras/Infantry are all termed 'Infantry', then they should all give the modifier. The odds of it negatively affecting game balance are negligible, considering that the only change that would entail from the current would be to add Paras to the list of 'infantry' that can grant the CAM.



Avatar47 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/6/2007 11:51:00 AM)

Seems militia really can add to CAM.

Regarding Paras, it's not news to me that they don't contribute. It's always bothered me a bit, but I assumed this was because it was too difficult to program Paras to provide CAM during a non-drop as opposed to a drop.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/6/2007 9:54:55 PM)

 
Well, this is from farther up the thread and posted by Wandering Head so I'm assuming its correct. I had always assumed that all three gave the modifier anyways.

quote:

out of curiousity, who was aware that militia could take the place of infantry to give CA?

I was not aware of it until a few weaks ago, when I was surprised to see CA in a particular combat.


As I said, if its taken this long for anyone to find out and even the beta-testers and tournament players didnt notice, its not some major issue that is going to swing balance at all. So from that point of view, I'd say just for consistancy, let 'em all do it. Its not going to change balance and it makes sense within the game rules (ie, all three are treated as infantry for targeting anyways, and all three are probably what any outside observer would regard as 'infantry').





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.577881