Rifle Squad Differences? (Full Version)

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



Message

Shazman -> Rifle Squad Differences? (3/13/2009 7:34:21 PM)

I'm trying to determine what makes a rifle squad light, regular or heavy. Perhaps the number of light machine guns? Perhaps the number of men in the squad?

I realize the differences between the generic squads and those with RL and HRL. It's the vanilla ones I'm wondering about.

Does anyone have any definitive information on this?



ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/13/2009 7:54:00 PM)

It's not something where 'information' will really help -- although the heavy rifle squad is supposed to represents squads with an unusually high number of automatic weapons.

The real problem is the whole concept of having the 'squad' as the ultimate particle rather than the individual rifleman. Historical 'squads' ranged all the way from eight men to nineteen men -- and how to translate all that accurately into uniform TOAW squads is a conundrum with no really satisfactory solution.

For what it's worth, I've done the following in my scenarios.

German squads are 'heavy rifle.' The Germans made much more effective use of their machine guns and had a much more aggressive doctrine than other armies. For 'squads' that actually had more automatic weapons such as the panzergrenadiers, I've made up a 'Schutzen' squad where that attack number is punched up even higher.

Forces with inadequately trained or demoralized or poorly equipped infantry get 'light rifles.' They might well be able to defend themselves, but they would be disproportionately lackluster in the attack, and less likely to inflict casualties on the enemy.

For the Japanese -- although I have never actually designed a scenario involving them -- I've contemplated the idea of using 'assault recon teams.' After all, the Japanese were experts at either suffering or inflicting very heavy losses very quickly. It seems to me the low defense value and high attack value of 'assault recon' could produce this effect -- and of course the enhanced ability to slip around defenders wouldn't be inappropriate either.

Other than that, I have a predilection for following the T0&E. A battalion with three rifle companies of three rifle platoons each consisting of three rifle squads gets 27 rifle squads -- regardless of whether these were eight man squads or fourteen man sections. I realize others might use a different formula.

Generally, about all that can be definitively said is that one should apply one's formula consistently. If one represents one sides' three fourteen man sections with three rifle squads, it's hardly reasonable to represent the other side's three thirteen man sections with four rifle squads.

I've never understood why TOAW was designed this way. In fact, I don't see why it couldn't be changed now. Rather than the 'squad' as the base unit, we could just have different flavors of individual riflemen and MG teams. Naturally, all the other numbers in the database would need to get multiplied -- but so what? It just doesn't sound very hard.



golden delicious -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/13/2009 9:01:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Forces with inadequately trained or demoralized or poorly equipped infantry get 'light rifles.' They might well be able to defend themselves, but they would be disproportionately lackluster in the attack, and less likely to inflict casualties on the enemy.


"Defend" and "Attack" and the tactical level, not in terms of whether you're trying to hold a hex or capture one.

Anti-personnel strength influences the lethality of equipment, defence strength influences its survivability.

quote:

It seems to me the low defense value and high attack value of 'assault recon'


It has the normal defence value. You'd have to either modify it, or cripple the Japanese in some other way. In fact I think regular rifle recon squads would be good. The reconaissance value would give their infantry a great shock effect, but if the enemy survived the initial storm they would be unlikely to shift them later. Add to this high proficiency, and you have assaults which are either immediately successful or leave the attackers in ruins.

quote:

I've never understood why TOAW was designed this way. In fact, I don't see why it couldn't be changed now.


It could- but it would require a new version with various tweaks, not a modified database, as more items of equipment will need more transport, and more transport will lead to very high traffic penalties.



Shazman -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/13/2009 10:09:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Other than that, I have a predilection for following the T0&E. A battalion with three rifle companies of three rifle platoons each consisting of three rifle squads gets 27 rifle squads -- regardless of whether these were eight man squads or fourteen man sections. I realize others might use a different formula.



Ah, and there's another situation all together. An army, say the Soviets, begin the war with twelve man rifle squads but end the war with nine man rifle squads. I think their rifle divisions went through more changes than my wife since I married her. [:D]

I do agree that one is forced into a corner and the game does not give enough flexibility to cover a campaign adequately for more than a few months so comprimises abound. The Western Allies might be the more stable of the bunch...might be.

Thanks for your help.



fogger -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 12:33:22 AM)

Shazman, the reason why women marry men is to change them into what they want. [:D] Also remember the golden rule. A women always remains the same once they reach 21yo. Just ask my mum, she still puts her age down as 21 and heaven help anybody who questions it. [:-]



ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 1:55:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It could- but it would require a new version with various tweaks, not a modified database, as more items of equipment will need more transport, and more transport will lead to very high traffic penalties.


Yeah. However, none of the programming hurdles sound all that daunting. More a matter of there being a fair number of them.



ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 2:07:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Forces with inadequately trained or demoralized or poorly equipped infantry get 'light rifles.' They might well be able to defend themselves, but they would be disproportionately lackluster in the attack, and less likely to inflict casualties on the enemy.


"Defend" and "Attack" and the tactical level, not in terms of whether you're trying to hold a hex or capture one.

Anti-personnel strength influences the lethality of equipment, defence strength influences its survivability.


Yeah, that I know.
quote:



quote:

It seems to me the low defense value and high attack value of 'assault recon'


It has the normal defence value. You'd have to either modify it, or cripple the Japanese in some other way. In fact I think regular rifle recon squads would be good. The reconaissance value would give their infantry a great shock effect, but if the enemy survived the initial storm they would be unlikely to shift them later. Add to this high proficiency, and you have assaults which are either immediately successful or leave the attackers in ruins.


Right you are. I'd tend to play with lowering the defense value, as even early in the war, Japanese attacks that didn't work tended to leave large mounds of dead Japanese.

Your basic unsuccessful German attack would push out a paw, take 10% casualties, say that's not working, and go try poking somewhere else. Your basic Japanese attack would jump in with both feet, and either succeed gloriously (usually, 1941-42) or fail abysmally with 80% losses (usually, 1943-45).

...your basic Anglo-American attack would say, 'there seem to be enemy troops present,' plaster the area with ten tons per square foot of high explosive, push out a paw, say 'there are still enemy troops present', try plastering the area with one hundred tons per square foot of high explosive, and push out the the paw again...



golden delicious -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 12:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah, that I know.


Well, we are trying to be educational, so I thought I'd better spell it out.



vahauser -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 6:10:10 PM)

I believe that the .eqp file should be tailored to the scenario being played.  1939 is different from 1945.  I basically treat rifle squads as groups of 10 men.  So, for me, the 14-man Polish rifle squads in 1939 get 27 rifle squads + 10 light rifle squads per battalion (they only had 1 LMG per squad). 

Further, counting up the number of LMGs per battalion can help determine the number of light/standard/heavy rifle squads per battalion.  For example, if a German battalion has 36 LMGs and 27 squads, then that would be 18 rifle squads and 9 heavy rifle squads.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 6:11:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

I'm trying to determine what makes a rifle squad light, regular or heavy. Perhaps the number of light machine guns? Perhaps the number of men in the squad?

I realize the differences between the generic squads and those with RL and HRL. It's the vanilla ones I'm wondering about.

Does anyone have any definitive information on this?


In the manual folder you'll find the following document: "Equipment List.rtf". Look under "Additional Equipment Notes", "Infantry, Cavalry, & Support Troops" on page 88. It describes what Norm intended the various squads to represent. I read it as follows:

Light Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with rifles.
Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with rifles + 1 LMG.
Heavy Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with rifles + 1 MMG.
SMG Squad: The squad is armed with SMGs + 1 LMG.
Assault Rifle Squad: The squad is armed with assault rifles + 1 LMG.

Of course, designers are free to interpret them however they please. One variation I use is to slightly alter the HRS definition to have 2 LMGs instead of the 1 MMG.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/14/2009 6:15:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I basically treat rifle squads as groups of 10 men.  So, for me, the 14-man Polish rifle squads in 1939 get 27 rifle squads + 10 light rifle squads per battalion (they only had 1 LMG per squad). 

Further, counting up the number of LMGs per battalion can help determine the number of light/standard/heavy rifle squads per battalion.  For example, if a German battalion has 36 LMGs and 27 squads, then that would be 18 rifle squads and 9 heavy rifle squads.


That's the way I do it. Pour the contents of the squads into a pile, stir it with a stick, then reform 10-man squads however the equipment allows.



rhinobones -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 4:36:13 AM)

At the operational scale of warfare, why is any one concerned about the composition of a “squad”? After all, we are talking about the operational orders given to battalions, regiments and divisions. Not squads.

Norm gave you some candy, doesn’t mean you have to eat it.

Regards, RhinoBones



L`zard -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 5:36:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman
I'm trying to determine what makes a rifle squad light, regular or heavy. Perhaps the number of light machine guns? Perhaps the number of men in the squad?
I realize the differences between the generic squads and those with RL and HRL. It's the vanilla ones I'm wondering about.
Does anyone have any definitive information on this?


Shaz,

Considering that there are 'Editors' available to scenario designers, where-in they can change almost all the numbers to make a sqd work as they please, all I can say to you is that 'IT DEPENDS'.........

I'd say outright that it's all about the designer's intent....

AND I agree with Rhino, more or less, that Sqds are just another way of pushing numbers into 'formation values'.........

So in every scenario, there will be variables that will be defined only by the designer, and might not have all that high a degree of accuracy vis a vis a 'particular' OOB for one time and nation or another due to the designers understanding of the comparative situation.

This is one reason why most of us have a whole library of 'urls' to various sites yielding OOB information.

Good Luck in your quest, eh?





rhinobones -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 6:13:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard
Good Luck in your quest, eh?


Eh, eh . . . and another couple of eh's for you and your farm animals.

Eh . . . how you doing with a bunch of "Eh's" from Budapest?

Wish you the best from that great state of North New York. Eh, eh!

Regards, RhinoBones



L`zard -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 6:51:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard
Good Luck in your quest, eh?


Eh, eh . . . and another couple of eh's for you and your farm animals.

Eh . . . how you doing with a bunch of "Eh's" from Budapest?

Wish you the best from that great state of North New York. Eh, eh!

Regards, RhinoBones


[{Pretty dmn Good...from the East, just looking for more 'eh's' from the West}]

Reps to ya Rhino, if it could be done! Your sh** don't stink.......That much, lol

I WILL continue to keep my friends from behind the Iron Curtain, reguarless of the expense to myself...



Central Blue -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 7:16:06 AM)

one of the reasons I never finish a scenario is that I get distracted on figuring out things like how to create "accurate" squads or other items of equipment.

Let's say you accept that the water-cooled Vickers should be you gold standard for the AP value of 2. You could base your theory on cyclic rate of fire, but I think a better calculation is something like sustained rate of fire per minute. The M3 grease gun or Sten have interesting cyclic rates of fire, but it is hard to imagine anyone firing as many effective rounds per minute from a Sten as a water cooled weapon like the Vickers or M1917.

So you poke around on the internet and you find out that the Vickers could fire 10,000 rounds per hour, hour after hour. So you find out how much the typical slug weighs, push the numbers around till you have a formula that equals an AP of 2. Then you can begin to evaluate other weapons like the BAR and Bren. You can find FM's for the BAR that say sustained rate of fire is maybe 40-60 rounds per minute depending on training and model. And you can find lots of claims on the net that the Bren is good for 120 sustained rounds per minute, which is probably true if it really is operated by a team and they have spare barrels.

You can push the numbers around according to whatever data you can come up with, but all of a sudden, all of those Brens and 2" mortars in the carrier platoon begin to make some sense, because they actually add a significant weight of fire to the battalion.

And you can examine issues like the change in weight of the slug for M1917 because it was shooting too far for most interwar ranges in the US.

And it leaves all sorts of room for interesting arguments, because sustained rate of fire for the Garand isn't really that much higher than some claims made on behalf of the Springfield or Enfield. Someone writing a squad for a game with week long turns might decide to rate weapons differently than someone covering multiple turns per day.

BUt, in the specific case of figuring out a squad, fractional differences between individual weapons take on more meaning because they are being added together. That guy with the pistol carrying ammo or spare barrels and a pistol isn't adding anything to the weight of fire going down range/

What ever rate of fire numbers you choose, it gives you a way to compare a Series G Marine Corps Squad with 3 BAR's and 10 Garands to a German squad with one light MG43 and 4 to 6 guy running around with bolt action rifles while everyone else is catering to the needs of the MG43. A useful number if you are writing that scenario where the Marines storm Omaha Beach




ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 9:44:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

one of the reasons I never finish a scenario is that I get distracted on figuring out things like how to create "accurate" squads or other items of equipment.

Let's say you accept that the water-cooled Vickers should be you gold standard for the AP value of 2. You could base your theory on cyclic rate of fire, but I think a better calculation is something like sustained rate of fire per minute. The M3 grease gun or Sten have interesting cyclic rates of fire, but it is hard to imagine anyone firing as many effective rounds per minute from a Sten as a water cooled weapon like the Vickers or M1917.

So you poke around on the internet and you find out that the Vickers could fire 10,000 rounds per hour, hour after hour. So you find out how much the typical slug weighs, push the numbers around till you have a formula that equals an AP of 2. Then you can begin to evaluate other weapons like the BAR and Bren. You can find FM's for the BAR that say sustained rate of fire is maybe 40-60 rounds per minute depending on training and model. And you can find lots of claims on the net that the Bren is good for 120 sustained rounds per minute, which is probably true if it really is operated by a team and they have spare barrels.

You can push the numbers around according to whatever data you can come up with, but all of a sudden, all of those Brens and 2" mortars in the carrier platoon begin to make some sense, because they actually add a significant weight of fire to the battalion.

And you can examine issues like the change in weight of the slug for M1917 because it was shooting too far for most interwar ranges in the US.

And it leaves all sorts of room for interesting arguments, because sustained rate of fire for the Garand isn't really that much higher than some claims made on behalf of the Springfield or Enfield. Someone writing a squad for a game with week long turns might decide to rate weapons differently than someone covering multiple turns per day.

BUt, in the specific case of figuring out a squad, fractional differences between individual weapons take on more meaning because they are being added together. That guy with the pistol carrying ammo or spare barrels and a pistol isn't adding anything to the weight of fire going down range/

What ever rate of fire numbers you choose, it gives you a way to compare a Series G Marine Corps Squad with 3 BAR's and 10 Garands to a German squad with one light MG43 and 4 to 6 guy running around with bolt action rifles while everyone else is catering to the needs of the MG43. A useful number if you are writing that scenario where the Marines storm Omaha Beach




There's reliability. Always a big factor. Aside from what happens if the damn thing actually does jam, it gives everyone that warm fuzzy feeling if they know the machine gun will work when they need it to.

There's also the consideration the Germans found convincing: that people will hide once you open fire on them with a machine gun, so an extremely high rate of fire was desirable. In other words, in a lot of situations, it doesn't matter how many bullets you're spitting out on second three or four: everyone's either hit or under cover.

Just as importantly, though, I think you have to look at how the automatic weapon was employed. The Germans, more so than other armies, tended to see the infantry squad as a support team for the machine gun. This probably made at least as big a difference as whether the piece fired five hundred rounds a minute, or nine hundred, or whether it could fire for three minutes or seven minutes without pause.

Generally, when it comes to weapons I think people overemphasize rate of fire, shell weight, range, etc. One has to look at such 'softer' data as reliability, ease of use, and the doctrine for that use. For example, if one looks at numbers for a vehicle such as the Pz III with the 37 mm gun, it's a rather unimpressive tank compared to the Somua. This overlooks factors like that nice roomy turret, and carefully-thought out crew positions, and reliability, and radios, and how the crew was taught to use their tank. Put all those together, and you realize you might really be better off in the Pz III than in the Somua. At any rate, not as worse off as it might first appear.



golden delicious -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 12:04:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

So, for me, the 14-man Polish rifle squads in 1939 get 27 rifle squads + 10 light rifle squads per battalion (they only had 1 LMG per squad).


14 men is just the rifle teams- there are actually 18 riflemen in the squad, plus the machine-gunner. Plus the light mortar section of the platoon has 10 men with 7 rifles, which strikes me as more than you need to handle a few 46mm shells.

Adding these extra light rifles makes a world of difference. When I included them in my Poland, it became a lot more difficult for the German to just bludgeon his way to victory with artillery.

One can get too bogged down in this- and obviously the four stretcher bearers in the company HQ are going to be carrying stretchers, not firing their rifles. But it's certainly worth looking.



Central Blue -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 6:30:18 PM)

Go to the trouble of tracking down all that sort of data on rate of fire and you'll run into plenty of discussion on squad tactics and weapons design that is quite fascinating and also diverting from the grunt work of scenario creation. So it's entertaining to know that the MG43 is designed for a certain rate of fire because of their concept of how long men would remain in the open before seeking cover, but the game discussed here operates in periods of hours to weeks rather than second and minutes.

Talking about squad tactics and trying to assign AP numbers to squads based on their theory of operation rather than the actual weapons in their possession and you are talking about some other game, with some other rules, and at a scale considerably lower than 2.5 km per hex. No doubt it would be an interesting game because you could get into the different ways different Allied squads would maneuver against that squad of Germans and their MG43.

Or, for this game and a given scenario, you could just come to the conclusion that German squads like totally kick ass you know man, so they should have twice the AP of other squads. Scenario designers have that option if they want to use the ACOW editor.

Reliability of a weapon is affected by its rate of fire. Fire it too fast for too long and the weapon ceases to become effective. That's why there are numbers on effective or sustained rate vs. cyclic rate.

You don't read a lot of complaints about reliability from fans of the BAR, Bren, or MG43; try to come up with soft data based on the opinions of the fans of those weapons and you are well out of the land of data, soft or otherwise. On the other hand, if the designer feels that the advertised rate of fire numbers he has for x weapon are unrealistic because it was notoriously unreliable, he has a matrix to plug his number into that allows him to compare apples to apples.

Getting into tanks vs. tanks and you are still left with the issue of the game we have versus some other game. Spend enough time looking at the armor and anti-armor numbers as they are for the WWII assets, and its pretty clear that more often than not, they are roughly equivalent to centimeters of armor on the turret front and widely available numbers on penetration of 30 degree RHA armor at 1000 meters. Coming up with some more predictable armor vs anti-armor formula based on rate of fire and something more complex than the turret front is beyond my arithmetic skills.

But this isn't a game about the second to second travails of the hapless crew members of the individual Somua. The scenario creator is free to employ all sorts of soft data to rate the various air and ground units, and that is mostly what we have to model the training and doctrine for units of Somuas vs. units of Pz III's not to mention coordinated air cover for the Germans vs. whatever the French air force was doing.



ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 6:51:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
...But this isn't a game about the second to second travails of the hapless crew members of the individual Somua. The scenario creator is free to employ all sorts of soft data to rate the various air and ground units, and that is mostly what we have to model the training and doctrine for units of Somuas vs. units of Pz III's not to mention coordinated air cover for the Germans vs. whatever the French air force was doing.


Well, at least in theory, if the liability or redeeming feature is idiosyncratic to the weapon rather than the unit as a whole, one would want to adjust the values for that weapon, not for the unit.

Like, if you are convinced that the H-78 was a piece of crap that burst into flame under rifle fire, then one would units affected to exactly the extent that they were equipped with H-78's. The obvious thing to do is to adjust the values one assigns to the H-78.

I think part of the difference here is my attitude towards design. I always adjust weapon values to whatever I find appropriate to the scenario. It's not like I see this as some kind of radical measure or somehow harder than adjusting final unit values.



Shazman -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 7:13:12 PM)

Now my head hurts. [:(]



Central Blue -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 8:44:06 PM)

quote:

Generally, when it comes to weapons I think people overemphasize rate of fire, shell weight, range, etc. One has to look at such 'softer' data as reliability, ease of use, and the doctrine for that use.

quote:


Well, at least in theory, if the liability or redeeming feature is idiosyncratic to the weapon rather than the unit as a whole, one would want to adjust the values for that weapon, not for the unit.


I talk about individual weapons and you talk about doctrine and training. I talk about doctrine and training and you talk about individual weapons.

quote:

Like, if you are convinced that the H-78 was a piece of crap that burst into flame under rifle fire, then one would units affected to exactly the extent that they were equipped with H-78's. The obvious thing to do is to adjust the values one assigns to the H-78.


Fine, but dragging vehicles into a discussion about squads is apples and oranges unless you think someone here is arguing that they should be evaluated by the same criteria.

quote:

I think part of the difference here is my attitude towards design. I always adjust weapon values to whatever I find appropriate to the scenario. It's not like I see this as some kind of radical measure


There's nothing radical about adjusting weapon values to suit whatever it is you are trying to accomplish in a given scenario at a given time and distance scale in a specific time period. The water-cooled .30/.303/7.92 Maxim-type machine gun has not been the standard mmg for some time and may not be the best standard for basing AP on even in the era when they were common. The scenario could be taking place in an environment where some weapons systems under-performed normal operations in a significant way.

Whether you have some method of comparing apples to apples in the world of squad AP value (or other weapons systems) or prefer to rely on your feelings about your opinions on soft "data" like warm fuzzy feelings about a particular squad weapon is entirely your call.



golden delicious -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/15/2009 10:34:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

I talk about individual weapons and you talk about doctrine and training. I talk about doctrine and training and you talk about individual weapons.


Well it's all part of the same question. At the end of the day you want units that perform appropriately. How you get there is not especially important.



Central Blue -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/16/2009 12:18:35 AM)

quote:

Well it's all part of the same question.


A point that is not in dispute. Decisions are being made about individual weapons for the squad for some reason -- whether its a coherent doctrine or a sop to the local arms industry. That doesn't mean that there can't be some systematic method of evaluating the various types of weapons that make sense in the world of this game. Nor does it mean that individual squad weapons are a trivial factor.

The fact that Germans decided to form squad doctrine around the LMG doesn't mean jack if that LMG is the M1919. You can read the British army and US Army talking about a base of fire for the squad in WWII. The Germans did something about it. The Marines did something entirely different with what was available.

quote:


How you get there is not especially important.


Perhaps not. But I like to have something that I could easily explain to others if I ever finish and post a scenario. Vahauser and Lemay have a system that can easily be understood within the context of the game as it is written. Heck, it could even be the desire to make the unit values mimic your favorite old Avalon Hill board game. But if you're adding and subtracting numbers because they feel right according to your opinion about squad doctrine based on who knows what criteria, then I am skeptical.




ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/16/2009 1:16:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

...prefer to rely on your feelings about your opinions on soft "data" like warm fuzzy feelings about a particular squad weapon is entirely your call.



The implication here is that intangibles like 'soft' data are inherently less important than nice, specific numbers like muzzle velocity, etc.

That's not a valid approach at all. Take two aircraft with similar values for 'hard' data -- say the Westland Whirlwind and the Bf-110.

About the same? Not at all. The Bf-110 was decidedly a disappointment -- but remained valuable in certain roles and under certain circumstances. The Westland Whirlwind was completely useless.



ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/16/2009 1:21:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

Perhaps not. But I like to have something that I could easily explain to others if I ever finish and post a scenario. Vahauser and Lemay have a system that can easily be understood within the context of the game as it is written. Heck, it could even be the desire to make the unit values mimic your favorite old Avalon Hill board game. But if you're adding and subtracting numbers because they feel right according to your opinion about squad doctrine based on who knows what criteria, then I am skeptical.




This would work if the goal was to produce a scenario with values that could be clearly defended in a short argument.

It's not -- or at least it isn't for me. The goal is to produce a scenario that models the situation as accurately as possible. Whether or not Curtis LeMay can score rhetorical points off it if he feels so inclined is a decidedly secondary consideration -- and I imagine Curtis feels the same way.

When he makes a design decision he doesn't ask -- 'Can Colin make this look stupid?' I assume he asks 'does this accurately model what was going on?'

If -- say -- I am deciding what values to assign to a 'Home Guard Rifle Squad' for my Seelowe scenario, I don't look up Lewis gun rates of fire and try to work out whether the Springfield was a better rifle than the Enfield. No -- I think about who was in the Home Guard, what I think their attitude would have been, and how common military experience was in the population. Plus maybe considerations as to the physical fitness of the average British forty five year old.

Now, my choices on all of these would be far harder to defend than some decision about how Lewis Guns compared to Bren Guns. That doesn't make me inclined to base my decision primarily on how Lewis Guns compared to Bren Guns.

When Guderian became Inspector of Armored Troops in 1943, one of his more important decisions was to insist that Mark IV production be continued even though the Panther was available -- and he was very proud that he did this.

Weird, isn't it? The Panther was twice as good as the Mark IV. Except that the early Panther was very unreliable, whereas the Mark IV was a well-tested design with all the bugs worked out. Except that virtually all Wehrmacht tank mechanics were very familiar with the Mark IV but few had seen a Panther.

Etc. All those fuzzy intangibles, in other words. They matter. In fact, I suspect that they can be more important than the tangibles.



ColinWright -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/16/2009 1:45:42 AM)

Let's take the British 25 pounder. This weapon serves to illustrate a couple of points quite nicely.

Consider it as an AT weapon. Would it have the same values as some other artillery piece with the same shell weight, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, size and weight, etc?

Not at all. First off, the 25 pounder was designed as a dual purpose piece. It was able to rotate quickly, AP ammunition was routinely issued for it, and its crews were trained to use it as an AT gun.

Okay -- so it has a considerable AT value. Is that value always the same?

No -- it changed. The 25 pounder -- unlike a single-purpose AT gun -- did not have a particularly high muzzle velocity. That meant it was only effective as an AT piece at fairly short range.

At first, when German panzers encountered it in the AT role, they would try to close the range and kill the crews. Say in 1941.

By 1942, they had learned different. Just stay outside its range and shell it with the 75 mm gun on the Mark IV.

The AT value drops. Same gun, same crews, same shells, even the same targets. But one of those 'soft' factors has changed -- in this case, how the enemy treats the weapon. This completely changes the appropriate AT value for the piece.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/16/2009 6:30:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard

Considering that there are 'Editors' available to scenario designers, where-in they can change almost all the numbers to make a sqd work as they please, all I can say to you is that 'IT DEPENDS'.........


I would only slightly take issue with this. While there is the equipment file that can be changed as you please, when it comes to squads, there's not as much latitude as you might think. That's because the system uses integers instead of reals. The realistic range for squad AP values is about 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. You can't set it to 3.78 or 5.14, etc. And, no, the x8 values aren't used. The system uses the rounded /8 values. That's why I still use the method I listed above. There isn't enough fine control to properly distinguish between an 8-man squad vs. a 14 man squad, for example, using the range available.

Now, one can re-jigger the entire system to use much higher values for everything. That would give you finer control. But that requires recalulating every peice of equipment in the inventory. And I'm not sure how the system would handle it.



Central Blue -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/17/2009 5:04:32 AM)

quote:

The goal is to produce a scenario that models the situation as accurately as possible.


So long as you don't have to describe your criteria in a way that any potential player could evaluate your model, your accuracy, or whether they should put any effort into playing your scenario. Your criteria works well enough if your only goal is to have the scenario mostly come to the same result as the historical action or campaign regardless of what the player on the losing side brings to the game.

quote:

Let's take the British 25 pounder. This weapon serves to illustrate a couple of points quite nicely.

Consider it as an AT weapon.


It's all very well to talk about the AT value of the 25 pounder, but it doesn't have one in the game Norm wrote. Some people prefer to look up the available data and others have feelings based on whatever.

quote:

Would it have the same values as some other artillery piece with the same shell weight, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, size and weight, etc?


Who else had an 88mm field gun and bothered to develop an AP shot for it? But to try to take your question seriously, I am having a hard time understanding why identical guns would have different results under the same conditions unless it was some matter of the people employiog the gun.

quote:

No -- it changed. The 25 pounder -- unlike a single-purpose AT gun -- did not have a particularly high muzzle velocity. That meant it was only effective as an AT piece at fairly short range.


Nothing changed but the thickness of the armor on the approaching vehicles and the range at which the opposing weapons engage each other. The other possible change was the availability of alternative weapons systems that allowed the 25 pounder to mostly return to its original purpose -- so long range AT shots aren't that important if they are screened by six pounders or seventeen pounders.

At 500 or 2000 meters the 25 pounder is piercing X amount of armor so long as it is firing the same projectile from the same tube with the same charge -- otherwise it is a different weapon with the ACOW editor and the game that Norm wrote.

A person so inclined could look up the numbers and types of models of PZ IV in North Africa, how to rate their armor, and then whether they were routinely and effectively blazing away at the 25 pounders in 1942 without fear of counter fire.

Or you could have feelings about your opinions, and lots of warm fuzzys and soft data, and expect the player evaluating whether to play your scenario will go along for the ride.



vahauser -> RE: Rifle Squad Differences? (3/17/2009 4:47:58 PM)

Over a year ago, I designed a spreadsheet based on the hard data used in Steel Panthers to derive WW2 equipment ratings for TOAW III.  After months and months of messing around with that spreadsheet (based on tactical combat data), I've come up with numbers that make sense to me.  To me.  To anybody else?  Maybe not.

However, and here is the point, the spreadsheet is internally consistent.  This means that the numbers are not simply arbitrary and have had a lot of calibration and fine tuning applied to them.  How does this apply to rifle squads?  Well, I "count rifles", too, like pretty much everybody else (including Norm) who uses the BioEd.  It's how the game was developed.  It's how the game works.

Here is how I differentiate between rifle squads in battalions:
Step 1:  I use battalions (not companies or regiments) as the fundamental building block.
Step 2:  I total the number of men in the battalion (say, 600 or 800, etc.)
Step 3:  I determine how many rifle squads are in the battalion.
Step 4:  I determine how many crewed weapons are in the battalion (this includes squad LMGs).
Step 5:  I do an approximation of how many combat troops are used by the rifle squads + crewed weapons in the battalion.  For example, a Soviet rifle battalion might have 600 men and approximately the same number of rifle squads + crewed weapons as a German rifle battalion that has 800 men.  So, what does this mean?  This means that the German battalion has higher levels of support (communications, medical, supply, etc.).  Thus, both battalions might have 27 squads + approximately the same number of crewed weapons, but the German battalion will get higher ratings for proficiency, supply, readiness than the Soviet battalion, all other factors being equal.

In terms of the actual "counting rifles" approach to rifle squads, Curtis is more correct than Colin.  TOAW III is all about counting rifles.  It's how Norm designed the game.  Colin's "intangible" approach might sound nifty, but his approach is a square peg trying to fit into a triangular hole.  Golden Delicious is also correct in that all the men in the battalion must be accounted for somehow, even if they aren't all combat troops in the rifle squads and crewed weapons. [EDIT: Note to Golden Delicious, all those extra men in the Polish rifle battalions (and squads) made for a very cumbersome command situation that was nowhere near as lean and efficient as the German organization (which was not very lean and efficient itself (by later-war standards)).]

In terms of actually assigning combat values to rifle squads using the BioEd, I recommend that you don't do it unless your numbers are internally consistent from top to bottom.  I use 27 as my baseline combat value in my WW2 equipment spreadsheet.  Why 27?  27 is the value that Norm assigned to the HMG.  27 is also a good "midrange" baseline number to work from (meaning that 27 has a variety of equipments both weaker and stronger to compare it to).  Thus, all of my spreadsheet values are normalized to the 27 baseline value I've chosen.  This results in a rifle having a combat value of around 2 (depending on the kind of rifle).  So, a German rifle squad of 10 men (this is historically convenient because most German rifle squads throughout most of the war had 10 men) has 7 rifles + 1 LMG + 1 squad leader (who I assign a combat value of 1, half a rifle, because he should be leading and managing and directing his squad instead of firing his weapon).  This results in a 1943 German rifle squad having a combat value of around 27 (funny how that works out). 14 for the 7 rifles + 12 for the LMG42 + 1 for the squad leader = 27.

Now here is the rub.  The standard LMG works out to a combat value of 10 in my spreadsheet.  This means that most other rifle squads have a combat value of 25 (14 for 7 rifles + 10 for a standard LMG + 1 for the squad leader) instead of the 27 that I gave the Germans (since the Germans have an LMG42).  How can I account for the difference without having to create a whole new equipment in the BioEd for 'German 1943 rifle squad' (which opens a big can of worms since it implies an overwhelming plethora of differentiated rifle squads by nationality and date and equipment, ugh! and I really don't want to do that)?  Well, I can use the heavy rifle squads to make up for the difference.  27 basic rifle squads (at 25 per squad) is 675 and 27 rifle squads using LMG42s (at 27 per squad) is 729.  The difference is 54.  A standard heavy rifle squad is 31 in my spreadsheet (5 rifles (10) + 2 LMGs (20) + 1 squad leader (1) = 31).  Hence the difference between a standard rifle squad (25) and a standard heavy rifle squad (31) is 6.  And 6 times 9 equals 54.  Voila.  So, I can account for the superior LMG42 without having to create a whole mess of new equipment slots in the BioEd by simply using heavy rifle squads to account for the difference in performance.  Thus, a German battalion would have 18 standard + 9 heavy rifle squads in 1943 to account for the LMG42s.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875