Why the small inf teams ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein



Message

PDiFolco -> Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 12:24:48 PM)

Hello
Playing the game, I'm becoming rather discontent with the choice made of having only 4-5 men teams, even for plain infantry.
Previous CC games boasted squad-sized units of 6-10 men, now with only 4 in most teams, and 15 units max, counting leaders, vehicles and support weapons, we end up with very few infantry "grunts", (eg 10 teams = 40 men only..)
That's not enough for street fighting for example. After some combat minutes they're the first out, leaving the players no other choice than using other troops to get the VL.
That's neither realistic nor fun ... Please give us back our grunt squads !



berndn -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 1:11:17 PM)

I know that some mods have added bigger sized teams but because the opponent (AI or human player) has the same sized teams I don't feel that I loose them because they are to small. If I loose them in house to house fights it's most of the time due to some stupid mg team and me who just let them run into the mg fire.
Or on open ground when I simple ignored the fact that there was a tanl or infantry gun waiting for my team to show up.



mooxe -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 6:04:27 PM)

The advantage is less stragglers, and an easier time setting your men up against a wall or hedge to fight. But I do like having more men...



Neil N -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 6:39:28 PM)

Teams are basically broken down into half squads. Mooxe gives one good reason. Forcepools are basically battalion size, so you have a certain number of infantry teams. Look at it like this, given your limited infantry teams, would you rather have 20-25 9 or 10 man treams, or 40-50 4 or 5 man teams.



Pford -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 8:48:46 PM)

Personally I feel the smaller teams detract from the overall ambience of the game.



Fred98 -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 9:08:21 PM)

It’s a great example of the developers failing to explain their thinking.

Look at the makeup of a typical army squad.

3 men make up a MG team

4 men make up a rifle team

And then you have the squad leader and scouts.

In Close Combat, each of these teams are separate teams. You, the commander, must bring them together as a squad to work as one team.

-



Peter Fisla -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 11:08:08 PM)

I have to say I would like to have full squads (based on nationality) instead of half-squads...can we mod this?



final_drive -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/3/2008 11:46:49 PM)

quote:

I have to say I would like to have full squads (based on nationality) instead of half-squads...can we mod this?

You sure can: it's in the Team-data, but full TOE-strength 12-men US-squads will never be possible: ten men is the max limit (well in CC4 it was, wouldn't know about WaR). Also, graphically the status bar will not allow for more than seven men, and gameplay will suffer a little with teams greater than this size. You could consider an eight or nine men strong US team to represent a 'full' squad, taking into account that full strength was very rare in combat (ill, WIA, KIA, AWOL, detached,...) and have a German Gruppe (at that time around 9 men at full strength, with some differences between unit types) represented by six or seven men.

quote:

In Close Combat, each of these teams are separate teams. You, the commander, must bring them together as a squad to work as one team.

That's true, as that was the original set-up of the game, but it has been a bit of a flaw from the moment CC3 came up with larger maps, and especially from CC4 on, where you have larger Battlegroups that are still represented by this very limited number (15 max) of small-sized teams. In CC, unit sizes, team numbers and map frontages have since never really been in exactly the same scale. Still, it shouldn't keep people from enjoying the game.



Neil N -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 1:04:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

It’s a great example of the developers failing to explain their thinking.

Look at the makeup of a typical army squad.

3 men make up a MG team

4 men make up a rifle team

And then you have the squad leader and scouts.

In Close Combat, each of these teams are separate teams. You, the commander, must bring them together as a squad to work as one team.

-



WWII TO&E was a little different, depending on the type of unit.

for example, a US airborne rifle squad was typically made up of 10 rifle men (2 teams of 5) and 1 M1919A6 LMG (2 man crew)

Regular Army was similar, but the M1919A6 was replaced by a BAR gunner



squadleader_id -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 1:25:09 AM)

AFAIK the squads/teams in CC usually represent half-teams or under-strength squads.

Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.


The Panzer Grenadier Battalion, circa 1944

Battalion Headquarters (4 Officers, 16 men)

Communications Platoon (1 Officer, 22 men)

Supply Company (7 Officers, 156 men)

Company HQ (2 Officers, 11 men)

Medical Detachment (1 Officer, 4 men)

Maintenance Detachment (3 Officers, 79 men)

Fuel Detachment (12 men)

Munitions Detachment (14 men)

Supply Detachment (1 Officer, 36 men)

Heavy Company (3 Officers, 94 men)

Company HQ (1 Officer, 18 men)

Cannon Platoon (1 Officer, 31 men)

12-cm Mortar Platoon (1 Officer, 45 men)

Three Rifle Companies (3 Officers, 180 men), each comprised of;

Company HQ (1 Officer, 17 men)

Heavy Platoon comprised of;

Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 8 men)

Mortar Section (15 men)

Cannon Section (8 men)

Two Heavy Machine Gun Sections, each (11 men)

Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;

Platoon HQ (1 Officer or NCO, 6 men)

Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 10 men

Total Strength of 852 all ranks (24 Officers and 828 men)


The Parachute Infantry Battalion, circa 1945

Battalion Headquarters (6 Officers)

Headquarters Company (7 Officers, 165 men), comprised of;

Company HQ (3 Officers, 22 men)

Battalion Headquarters Section (15 men)

Supply Section (13 men)

Communications Platoon (27 men)

Light Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 46 men)

Mortar Platoon (3 Officers, 42 men)

Three Rifle Companies (8 Officers, 168 men), each comprised of;

Company HQ (2 Officers, 27 men)

Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;

Platoon HQ (2 Officers, 5 men)

Mortar Squad (6 men)

Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 12 men

Total Strength of 706 all ranks (37 Officers and 669 men)



squadleader_id -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 1:43:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

WWII TO&E was a little different, depending on the type of unit.

for example, a US airborne rifle squad was typically made up of 10 rifle men (2 teams of 5) and 1 M1919A6 LMG (2 man crew)

Regular Army was similar, but the M1919A6 was replaced by a BAR gunner



US Airborne Rifle Squads configuration (12 men):
Leader
Assistant Leader
5 Riflemen
2 Scouts
3 LMG crew (gunner, loader, ammo carrier)

In CC (CC4, CC5, WAR), this 12 men squad would usually be broken down and represented in the game as:
1 Rifle Squad (squad leader plus 4-6 men)
1 Scouts Team (asst leader plus 2-4 men)
1 MG Team (3 men)








Cathartes -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 5:22:48 AM)

Large teams are a liability in this game engine. They are easily sighted, they are awkward to move around and fit into proper cover, and they are easily decimated by enemy fire. They tend to bunch up. They quickly become half squads in combat situations.

The only advantage of larger teams is for defensive play in ambush situations where there is plenty of cover to take advantage of. It can work 'ok' in some situations.

In a perfect, future, CC world, someone will have larger maps, and more reasonable movement/coordination with larger teams. 



Neil N -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 6:35:57 AM)

Hey Andres, good to see you

From the Basic Field Manual

US Airborne Infantry Squad - 12 men

1 - Sqd Leader - M1/M1A1 SMG, M1A1 Carbine, or M1 Garand
1 - Asst Squad Ldr - M1/M1A1 SMG, M1A1 Carbine, or M1 Garand
9 - Riflemen - M1A1 Carbine, or M1 Garand
1 - M1919A6 LMG

Organized for maneuver as:
Able Team - 2 men(scouts)
Baker Team - Ldr + 3 men
Charlie Team - Asst Ldr + 3 men + LMG

One or more men per squad could also carry bazookas in addition to their personal weapon depending on the mission

That 3 man LMG team you mentioned would be 1 of the 4 to 6 M1919A4 LMGs that were part of the heavy weapons platoon and not part of the squad

Anyway you look at it, number of bodies and weapons representation are pretty spot on for Forcepool size.  With the Airborne as an example, Able team is gone with 1 man each being added to Baker and Charlie teams.



Korzun -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 9:36:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Large teams are a liability in this game engine. They are easily sighted, they are awkward to move around and fit into proper cover, and they are easily decimated by enemy fire. They tend to bunch up. They quickly become half squads in combat situations.

The only advantage of larger teams is for defensive play in ambush situations where there is plenty of cover to take advantage of. It can work 'ok' in some situations.

In a perfect, future, CC world, someone will have larger maps, and more reasonable movement/coordination with larger teams. 


I fully agree! I think with all the buildings around (in contrast to CC CoI)it is better to have small teams



jomni -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 1:51:13 PM)

I like the broken down squads because it enables you to perform true squad tactics.



Peter Fisla -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/4/2008 1:56:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korsun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Large teams are a liability in this game engine. They are easily sighted, they are awkward to move around and fit into proper cover, and they are easily decimated by enemy fire. They tend to bunch up. They quickly become half squads in combat situations.

The only advantage of larger teams is for defensive play in ambush situations where there is plenty of cover to take advantage of. It can work 'ok' in some situations.

In a perfect, future, CC world, someone will have larger maps, and more reasonable movement/coordination with larger teams.


I fully agree! I think with all the buildings around (in contrast to CC CoI)it is better to have small teams



I disagree, there was no such problem in Close Combat 1 with this, the engine can handle full squads well. The buildings in CC1 were large enough to accommodate a full squad. In CC2+ maps got prettier but a lot of buildings got smaller and hence the problem. The other problem is that machine guns are now deadlier since really you are attacking them with half-squads. I also have to say that CC1/CC2 interface was better than what we got today, the team monitor, squad monitor and overview maps built into the interface, now we got bunch of windows all over the place...

Anyways, I'm having a lot of fun with WAR and based on my play so far I would rate it second behind CC1. I just need to figure out how I can properly max out (7 men) for each full squad (or 6 depends on squad type I guess?) and I will be happy with the compromise.

Peter



Moss Orleni -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/12/2008 9:53:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I like the broken down squads because it enables you to perform true squad tactics.


I disagree!

Our H2H campaign is now in its 3rd turn, and the small teams are a real liability. There is no room for manoeuvering and tactics because your teams get wiped out in no time; the infantry simply has no staying power. Many battles quickly revert to either long range shootouts and extremely careful movement, or, when no infantry is left, vehicle shootouts.
Combined with high immobilization probabilities and the occasional super-Shermans [;)], we get the impression that the attacker (ie the German player) will have a very rough time trying advancing...
What plays to the German player's advantage though, is that due to the limited strategic map area, he doesn't even have to capture Bastogne to get a (minor) victory; a line running from Malmedy-Vielsalm-Houffalize-Longvilly-Wiltz(!) will already give you a majority of maps.

This said, we're still having a ball! The maps are beatiful, the vehicle artwork is great, the infantry weapon sounds are good (gun sounds is something different; very little variation there)...

Cheers,

Moss

Note: I didn't mention AI because team size is irrelevant; although the AI engine has improved somewhat, you can still play with it at leisure...



Stwa -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/12/2008 11:00:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korsun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

Large teams are a liability in this game engine. They are easily sighted, they are awkward to move around and fit into proper cover, and they are easily decimated by enemy fire. They tend to bunch up. They quickly become half squads in combat situations.

The only advantage of larger teams is for defensive play in ambush situations where there is plenty of cover to take advantage of. It can work 'ok' in some situations.

In a perfect, future, CC world, someone will have larger maps, and more reasonable movement/coordination with larger teams.


I fully agree! I think with all the buildings around (in contrast to CC CoI)it is better to have small teams



I disagree, there was no such problem in Close Combat 1 with this, the engine can handle full squads well. The buildings in CC1 were large enough to accommodate a full squad. In CC2+ maps got prettier but a lot of buildings got smaller and hence the problem. The other problem is that machine guns are now deadlier since really you are attacking them with half-squads. I also have to say that CC1/CC2 interface was better than what we got today, the team monitor, squad monitor and overview maps built into the interface, now we got bunch of windows all over the place...

Anyways, I'm having a lot of fun with WAR and based on my play so far I would rate it second behind CC1. I just need to figure out how I can properly max out (7 men) for each full squad (or 6 depends on squad type I guess?) and I will be happy with the compromise.

Peter


You can always try to Rambo that MG nest with 2 Rifle teams instead of one. This way you can prove your own theory to yourself. I'd be interested to know the results. [;)]

You know how machine guns work. Once your pinned, you gotta rely on somebody else, that's not lyin' on the ground next to you, to take em out, or to get their attention. Standing up and trying to run away (beeg team or not), usually doesn't work. [:)]



drogon -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 4:04:53 PM)

I will not enter the debate although I always liked to have 10 strong teams.

The positive point is this game is very easy to modify.

I am currently testing team sizes and effects on the AI.
I found that if most infantry teams are 10 strong (the maximum) it is far more balanced although you don't add more MG to either side.
A standard German team including an MG + various other soldiers works fine both in offence and defence.
For the American side I concluded that the BAR had to be made a primary weapon instead of a crewed one otherwise any US team was at a too great disadvantage form a firepower point of view.
Thus here are a few examples:
Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...

US teams: Absolutely have to add at least one BAR (as a primary weapon) to be more accurate and to balance the game.

Expanding teams up to 10 takes on average 20 minutes and you have to be carefull with the numbers but it is not at all difficult



philjat -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 4:12:44 PM)

Drogon,

I'll be happy to mod the teams, but i'm a newbie in this, can you give the path for that ?
I known i 'll need "Wacht am Rhein Data workbook"  but when i open him, Oupsss !

Philippe



final_drive -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 4:26:41 PM)

quote:

Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.


Squadleader,

Nice copy-paste from Gary J. Kennedy's site on WWII batallion organisation. Next time provide a link, so others can enjoy as well:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm

quote:

Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...


Sorry Drogon, in late '44 Volksgrenadier units had absolute priority on MP44/StG44 deliveries. With the establishment of the Sturmzug, their tactical doctrine on the platoon level was completely developed around this weapon. (SS-)Pz.Gren. for the time being largely stuck to their doctrine of two le.MG per Gruppe, with companies within only some units having a single (small) Sturmzug next to two Schützen-Züge. That is when enough of the new weapons and ammo for it, were around within that unit.



squadleader_id -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 5:04:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: final_drive

quote:

Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.


Squadleader,

Nice copy-paste from Gary J. Kennedy's site on WWII batallion organisation. Next time provide a link, so others can enjoy as well:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm


Sorry...I thought that the bayonetstrength site was already common knowledge to all tactical wargamers [:D]

quote:

Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...


quote:


Sorry Drogon, in late '44 Volksgrenadier units had absolute priority on MP44/StG44 deliveries. With the establishment of the Sturmzug, their tactical doctrine on the platoon level was completely developed around this weapon. (SS-)Pz.Gren. for the time being largely stuck to their doctrine of two le.MG per Gruppe, with companies within only some units having a single (small) Sturmzug next to two Schützen-Züge. That is when enough of the new weapons and ammo for it, were around within that unit.


Interesting...
Have you played TT's CC4: VetBoB (or Firefox's new CCWAR VetBoB)?
VG units are using a lot of StG44s in VetBoB...unlike in stock CC4 (and WAR).



final_drive -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 5:12:26 PM)

quote:

Have you played TT's CC4: VetBoB (or Firefox's new CCWAR VetBoB)?

I'm in VetBoB's credits. [;)]
Those were the days...



Peter Fisla -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 10:06:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: final_drive

quote:

Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.


Squadleader,

Nice copy-paste from Gary J. Kennedy's site on WWII batallion organisation. Next time provide a link, so others can enjoy as well:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm

quote:

Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...


Sorry Drogon, in late '44 Volksgrenadier units had absolute priority on MP44/StG44 deliveries. With the establishment of the Sturmzug, their tactical doctrine on the platoon level was completely developed around this weapon. (SS-)Pz.Gren. for the time being largely stuck to their doctrine of two le.MG per Gruppe, with companies within only some units having a single (small) Sturmzug next to two Schützen-Züge. That is when enough of the new weapons and ammo for it, were around within that unit.



Wow, I didn't know about this site, nice find! Thanks final_drive!



squadleader_id -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/14/2008 10:19:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: final_drive

quote:

Have you played TT's CC4: VetBoB (or Firefox's new CCWAR VetBoB)?

I'm in VetBoB's credits. [;)]
Those were the days...


Ahh...so I guess that explains the VG squads design and abundance of VG StG44 in VetBoB [;)]



drogon -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/15/2008 11:07:22 AM)

I did not say that my squads were historically accurate (I partly contributed to the Sturmgewehr 44 article in wiki so I know my squads are not correct).

I mod my squads so to have a quite balanced game against the AI.

Cheers



final_drive -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/18/2008 11:32:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

Ahh...so I guess that explains the VG squads design and abundance of VG StG44 in VetBoB [;)]



The 'problem' (if we care to use that heavy word in the context of what remains a very fine game) of the requisition screen in CC5, and now in CC:WaR, is the freedom it allows the player in composing his 15-unit battlegroup prior to battle.

At least it is an issue if you care for drawing up teams (squads) as historically accurately possible within the game engine's limits, while also caring about having an accurate unit structure one or two levels up in the chain of command: platoon and company.

CC4 did not allow any freedom in requisition, which wasn't liked by players:
- in stock (unmodded) campaign games it didn't bring enough variation for the player, having to play with the same mix of 15 units per battlegroup time and again.
- it made games predictable as the player could not surprise his opponent by a tactical choice of unit types, fit for the given tactical situation or terrain.
Yet, a fixed battlegroup screen was liked by a minority of players, because to them it appeared realistic to fight with the units you get, just like a company commander fights with his units and whatever he gets in support from higher command echelons (this of course, again within the game's UI limit of having only 15 units per battlegroup). Modding in for example the typical doctrinal fixed tactical structure of a Volksgrenadier-platoon was possible with CC4.

CC5 in a reaction to complaints brought freedom in requisition, but this had the disadvantage that any combination in the battlegroup lay-out became possible, as far as allowed by the units in the forcepool: e.g. as many mortar teams, tanks, etc. as the forcepool contained. Especially in single battles this could make for unbalanced battles.

Now CC:WaR at campaign set-up allows the choice between CC5-type open requisition, or CC4-type fixed battlegroups, which is a nice feature. The showing of the requisition points further assists in balancing single battles, though it still remains a matter of agreement between players.

In reality, squads operate(d) within platoon TO/E structures, together with dedicated platoon (or company) support weapons. Full freedom in CC's requisition screen, allows a player to disregard this historical aspect.

So the effort made by developers / modders in e.g. having Pz.Gren. teams of four/five men, each with their le.MG, which are clearly meant to represent doctrinal fire teams (Halbgruppen - 6 making for one full-strength platoon), is lost, if the player is not somehow forced to go with the platoon structure and is able to adapt his battegroup to his likenings. Likewise, the effort of having the correct number of .30cal MMGs available in the forcepool when compared to the number of rifle squads in that forcepool, is lost, if a player before battle can fill up his complete active roster with up to 15 .30cals. These are just two examples of the consequences of this 'requisition freedom'.

Anyway, a way too long post to explain what many long-time players know, but don't really care for as the game's still fun enough. [:)]
Still, I have no idea if technically possible, but it would be great if a mixed locked / unlocked requisition screen could be considered for a future patch: imagine having the composition of two first platoons 'locked' (mainly infantry platoon structure) and leaving the lay-out of the third (support) platoon to the choice of the player: enough historical "you fight-with-what-you-get", in combination with some freedom in selecting support units / weapons / armour to keep variation and tactical surprise.



Tejszd -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/19/2008 12:38:14 AM)

Its on my personal wish list to be able to turn on or off a realistic force mix. In CC2 the player could select any squads/vehicles they wanted as long as the points were available (it used a point system for buying units) and you still had spots available for that type of unit (it capped by type of unit the number you could have). Thus the unrealistic mixes you describe were tended to not be possible....



final_drive -> RE: Why the small inf teams ? (11/19/2008 10:43:29 AM)

Tesjzd,
Yes, of all CCs, CC2 had the best solution for that matter.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.906982