I was thinking of changing some stats

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I was thinking of changing some stats

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> I was thinking of changing some stats

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 2:05:20 AM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

I was thinking of changing some stats. This is partly as part of a broader aim to try and get each sub-unit in the game to represent a company-sized formation.

Some things I've been thinking of:

a) Increasing capability of the Rifle sub-unit by 50-100%, making it worth 150 or 200 production points, rather than 100.

b) Changing artillery. If an infantry sub-unit is a company, then an artillery sub-unit would be a battery. However, I think the Artillery unit in the game is about as strong as a battalion - three times more powerful. So I'm considering reducing the power and cost of artillery units.

Another consideration is the game's "resolution". If we were to really model the Artillery Regiment, it would have something like nine light howitzer and two or three heavy howitzer batteries, divided between four battalions. If there are twelve artillery sub-units in an Artillery Regiment now, then that lends the idea to divide them into light and heavy howitzers. The light howitzer would be a modified "Infantry Gun", with it's gun range changed to match Artillery and also halved in power, and the Artillery unit would be halved in power and become a heavy howitzer.

One of the main reasons I am interested in doing this, rather than having separate military organisational rules for artillery, is that heavy artillery (always) exists as independent Corps-level battalions. If an Artillery unit in the game is a battalion, then that makes the Heavy Artillery Battalion unit one sub-unit (and transport), which is very small.

c) Creating a Heavy Weapons infantry company. This would be the power of 2 x MG and 1 x Mortar divided by three. These would be the divisional level troops heavy weapons companies and the Machine-Gun unit and Mortar unit would instead only exist as independent Corps-level attached battalions (Machine Gun Battalion and Mortar Battalion). This is because mortars and MGs do not exist as companies in real-life TOEs, but rather are mixed as platoons in Heavy Companies.

d) Which brings me on to bazooka and SMG. I am thinking of deleting these formations, because, again, they do not really exist as company level units and instead are dispersed in Rifle companies, in mixed anti-tank battalions. Potentially SMG units could be adapted into Combat Engineer companies, armed with flame-throwers and other heavy-weapons.

e) Which brings me on to Anti-Tank guns. Like artillery, I think these can be reduced in power and cost. Possibly anti-aircraft too!

Post #: 1

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 6:45:48 PM

bobarossa

Posts: 262
Joined: 6/11/2002
From: Columbus, Ohio USA
Status: offline

You may want to look at the Four Seasons Mod (which is far more than a weather/terrain mod) and see what he did. He cheapened/weakened a number of units (artillery, aircraft) and created a hvy weapons company as you are suggesting. Don't think he tried creating real Assault Guns though.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 2

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 7:25:33 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Actually since the scale of the game is NOT defined I don't see how you can claim any size stats.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 3

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 8:08:01 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

I am saying the opposite - that there is no consistent unit size applied to the game, which is why I am interested in attempting to make it conform to real military organisation, with one sub-unit representing one company/battery.

Although the default counters used in the game are called "Divisions", the game cannot function as a divisional-level game (each counter representing a division) since mixing unit types in one counter - combining infantry, armour, artillery, anti-tank, anti-aircraft and so on - does not work with the game's rules.

So therefore it's either a game set at brigade/regiment (+ battalion) level or at battalion level. A game set at battalion level produces formations/units that are too small for the game (like four or five infantry as one counter), so brigade/regiment (+ battalion) level is the best fit.

Another alternative, would be to make a divisional mod with which artillery could function in the same counter as other units.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 4

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 9:01:38 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

My general formation of Infantry is 30 rifle 3 mg 2 mortar 1 Infantry Gun 1 AT gun and mobilization. Works JUST fine

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 5

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 9:32:43 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Real armies probably haven't used "general formations of Infantry" in their military organisation since before the beginning of civilization.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 6

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 11:06:31 PM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I think that your approach to this is all wrong the_iron_duke. Instead of thinking that you are changing some stats for the base game, you are really creating a new mod/base game/scenario with other rules. Once you make that declaration, things get much more easy. You are designing something new, and you can scratch almost everything you don't like and create things anew.

Bombur has done that, with his Bombur Mod/Random game, and others have too.

At the same time you are removing any confusion about the game as it comes in the box. You are no longer saying this or that is wrong, and thus you are not rubbing anyone the wrong way. Twotribes correctly identifies that the game functions well, if you buy into the assumptions that the orginal maker (Vic) has done.

In that sense you are both right.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 7

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 11:10:28 PM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Oh and if you make that declaration, stating you want to make something new, then I can say, welcome to the world of scenario and mod creation. ATG is so much more than a game. Indeed it was marketed as among other things, a wargame construction set. Once you begin to look at it in that way, you almost have infinite possibilities in making your game great, or even fantastic! :)

(in reply to ernieschwitz)

Post #: 8

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/18/2016 11:20:51 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

I don't understand why you both think I am wrong. Is not changing the base stats of a game the very definition of modding?

I would like to hereby declare that I am not part of the production team of this game and therefore things discussed in this thread are not official changes to the game that you have purchased

(in reply to ernieschwitz)

Post #: 9

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 3:15:43 AM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

This page offers an excellent summary of U.S., British and German military organisation from the (First and) Second World War(s), if anyone is interested. Generally, I think the American and later German regimental systems serve as better models for military organisational structure than the British ones*

* Although lack of manpower in the later war led to the number of battalions of infantry in German infantry regiments to be cut from three to two. So, if manpower wasn't an issue, they would probably have had 50% more infantry.

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/schilling/mil_org/milorgan_99.html

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 10

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 5:45:48 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Here is the T.O.E. for the late-war German Infantry Division:

This can be summarized as:

Fusilier (Recon) Battalion

4 x Fusilier (Cavalry is the existing game unit that best fits the fusilier battalion role, being infantry with increased movement and recon ability)

Signal Battalion

- not modelled

1st Infantry Regiment

1st Infantry Battalion

3 x Rifle
1 x Heavy Weapons

2nd Infantry Battalion

3 x Rifle
1 x Heavy Weapons

(3rd Infantry Battalion)

3 x Rifle
1 x Heavy Weapons

(as commented on, earlier and some later German infantry divisions had three battalions, and the reduction to two appears to have been one of necessity due to manpower shortage)

Infantry Close Support Howitzer Company

1 x Infantry Gun

Panzerjager (Anti-Tank company)

1 x Bazooka (mix of bazookas and AT guns - the game's AT gun is probably too powerful to be used as this unit)

2nd Infantry Regiment

(as 1st Infantry Regiment)

3rd Infantry Regiment

(as 1st Infantry Regiment)

Artillery Regiment

1st Light Artillery Battalion

3 x Light Howitzer

2nd Light Artillery Battalion

3 x Light Howitzer

3rd Light Artillery Battalion

3 x Light Howitzer

4th Medium Artillery Battalion

3 x Medium/Heavy Howitzer

Panzerjager (Anti-Tank Battalion)

1 x AT Gun
2 x Assault Gun (Tank Destroyer)
1 x Flak

Engineer Battalion

3 x Engineer

Divisional Services

- not modelled

I have attempted to model the German Infantry Division in four ways:

a) in a single counter, using company/battery as sub-unit scale
b) in a single counter, using battalion as sub-unit scale
c) with separate counters for divisional regiments and support battalions, using company/battery as sub-unit scale
d) with separate counters for divisional regiments and support battalions being amalgamated into the regiments, using company/battery as sub-unit scale

a) Modelling the German Infantry Division in a single counter, using company/battery as sub-unit scale):

Infantry Division

4 x Cavalry (representing bicycle fusilier recon)
27 x Rifle
9 x Heavy Weapons (mix of MG and mortar)
(using 3 battalion system - would be 18 Rifle, 6 HW using two-battalion system)
3 x Infantry Gun
6 x Anti-Tank (mixture of bazooka, AT Gun and Assault Gun (in Tank Destroyer role)
9 x Light Howitzer
3 x Medium/Heavy Howitzer
1 x Flak
3 x Engineer

b) Modelling the German Infantry Division in a single counter, using battalion as sub-unit scale):

Infantry Division

1 x Fusilier recon
9 x Rifle (6 if using two-battalion system)
3 x Light Howitzer artillery
1 x Medium/Heavy Howitzer artillery
1 x Anti-Tank
(1 x Engineer)

c) Modelling the German Infantry Division using a regimental system with support battalions as separate counters (four regimental counters, two or three battalion counters):

1st Infantry Regiment:

9 x Rifle
3 x Heavy Weapons
(or 6 x Rifle, 2 x HW if using two-battalion system)
1 x Infantry Gun
1 x Anti-Tank (probably bazooka as game's AT gun would be too powerful, relatively speaking)

2nd Infantry Regiment:

(as 1st Infantry Regiment)

3rd Infantry Regiment:

(as 1st Infantry Regiment)

Artillery Regiment

9 x Light Howtzer
3 x Medium/Heavy Howitzer

Anti-Tank Battalion

3 x Anti-Tank (technically, a mix of AT Guns and Assault Guns, but they may be too powerful, relatively speaking)
1 x Flak

Fusilier (recon) Battalion:

4 x Cavalry

Engineer Battalion:

3 x Engineer
(since the game's engineers are not combat engineers, this battalion could be omitted)

d) Modelling the German Infantry Division using a regimental system with support battalions not as separate counters but rather attached to and divided between the regiments (four regimental counters):

1st Infantry Regiment:

9 x Rifle
3 x Heavy Weapons
(or 6 x Rifle, 2 x HW if using two-battalion system)
1 x Infantry Gun
1 x Anti-Tank (probably bazooka as game's AT gun would be too powerful, relatively speaking)

with attached:

1 x Cavalry (from Fusilier recon battalion)
1 x Anti-Tank (from Anti-Tank Battalion)

2nd Infantry Regiment:

(as 1st Infantry Regiment)

3rd Infantry Regiment:

(as 1st Infantry Regiment)

Artillery Regiment:

9 x Light Howitzer
3 x Medium/Heavy Howitzer

(with attached: maybe gets the Flak company from the Anti-Tank Battalion)

< Message edited by the_iron_duke -- 10/19/2016 7:59:11 PM >

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 11

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 6:59:30 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Your units except maybe the division one are to weak. 9 infantry can not compete with regular sized units.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 12

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 7:29:29 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

That's one of the reasons I think units could be rebalanced, such as making Rifle sub-units more powerful. It's also why I think option d (counters representing regiments with attached sub-units from divisional support battalions) is the best fit for the game (as well as it separating the artillery sub-units into a separate formation to make it work with the game's rules).

This is the Infantry Regiment I have been using for my games and I have given each of the three consitituent battalions an extra SMG company to try and fill it out. I think it's a decent-sized unit for the game's purposes:

9 x Rifle
3 x Heavy Weapons (2 x MG, 1 x Mortar)
3 x SMG (extra company given to each battalion to fill it out)
2 x Bazooka (one representing the regimental anti-tank company and one representing an attached company from the divisional Anti-Tank Battalion)
1 x Cavalry (representing an attached company from divisional recon (fusilier) battalion)

I left out the Infantry Gun, as at 1000 production points, I think it's too powerful for the regiment.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 13

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 7:52:18 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Here's a screenshot from one of my battles using the regimental + attached system - a particularly intense battle with much greater concentration of troops than is typical.

I think generally it's a good fit with the unit strengths of the counters the AI produces. Full-strength Infantry Regiments have power strengths of something like between 35 and 55, depending on morale and experience and most of their power is defensive, so in defense those stats will be a lot higher.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 14

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 9:05:31 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the_iron_duke

That's one of the reasons I think units could be rebalanced, such as making Rifle sub-units more powerful. It's also why I think option d (counters representing regiments with attached sub-units from divisional support battalions) is the best fit for the game (as well as it separating the artillery sub-units into a separate formation to make it work with the game's rules).

This is the Infantry Regiment I have been using for my games and I have given each of the three consitituent battalions an extra SMG company to try and fill it out. I think it's a decent-sized unit for the game's purposes:

9 x Rifle
3 x Heavy Weapons (2 x MG, 1 x Mortar)
3 x SMG (extra company given to each battalion to fill it out)
2 x Bazooka (one representing the regimental anti-tank company and one representing an attached company from the divisional Anti-Tank Battalion)
1 x Cavalry (representing an attached company from divisional recon (fusilier) battalion)

I left out the Infantry Gun, as at 1000 production points, I think it's too powerful for the regiment.

I find the units just fine since I am not wed to a fantasy number for a unit.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 15

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 9:46:21 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

My experience with ai is that it makes units from 30 to 100 rifle it however mixes and matches with no rhyme or reason for why it selected what it did. It breaks down premade units as well and mixers them all up, your 9 rifle will die ignoble deaths against most actions by the AI I am used to playing.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 16

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 10:29:29 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Well, I have 436 hours on this game, according to Steam's timer. Having used this system for most of that, I can say that infantry regiments work just fine. As I described above, the Infantry Regiment is not just nine Rifle. The 2 MG and 2 Bazooka in each give them a lot of (defensive) strength. Plus, they have a cavalry unit for recon (and offensive power), a mortar and a further three SMG for game balance reasons. Also, of course, one does not play with just one counter per hex and so one combines multiple formations in hexes. Using a regimental system gives a lot of flexibility in how one stacks one's units according to tactical needs.

The Infantry Regiments are, on their own, a defensive formation and are only good on the offense if the target has been effectively suppressed through artillery and air support and with the further advantages of attacking from multiple hex sides and with armour support.

Having said that, I would like to improve the Rifle unit by 50%, making it 150 production points, and then remove the SMGs that I had added to the Infantry Division. So the Infantry Regiments rifle companies would improve a little (1230 prod points on 9 Rifle, 3 SMG vs 1350 points on 9 x improved Rifle).

There are two ways of looking at the military formations - their organisation and their equipment. For example, if going by their organisation, there would be no SMG units, since these are distributed down to squad level and there are no SMG companies; or if one metaphorically rips apart the organisation or puts the formation in a blender so to speak, then SMGs will appear.

One possibility is to keep the SMG unit and consider that of the three rifle companies in the infantry battalion, one of them is SMG to represent the SMGs distributed within the rifle squads. So instead of an infantry battalion being 3 x Rifle, 1 x Heavy Weapon (MGs/Mortars), it is 2 x Rifle, 1 x SMG, 1 x Heavy Weapon.

Another possibility, is that the Combat Engineer unit could be created, either as a replacement for the SMG unit or alongside it. The Combat Engineer unit type is currently omitted from the game, yet is an intrinsic part of military organisation, existing as companies, battalions (and maybe even regiments). Basically, this unit would be a cross between the SMG unit and Mortar unit, having better offensive stats than defense (like Mortar) but the close terrain bonuses of the SMG unit. Plus, it could probably have engineer ability too.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 17

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 10:57:26 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

A Combat Engineer sub-unit type would be a cool addition, actually. To reflect its specialist nature, it could maybe only get the close terrain combat bonuses when it is attacking (unlike mortar, which gets penalties for attacking close terrain). So the Combat Engineer would only have one combat use: attacking close terrain, such as cities, forest.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 18

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/19/2016 11:30:38 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Incidentally, I had a cool idea for a feature in a future concept game. Each sub-unit would have essentially four lives, representing the four platoons contained within each. These would be represented by green squares. So instead of taking damage and losing whole companies, the damage would be a bit more spread around, which would be more realistic. This also works better if containing various different sub-unit types in a single formation.

Having four lives/platoons could also perhaps give some flexibility in unit customization. For example, perhaps one could make adjustments to one's formation content, such as having the capability to pay extra, with an additional surcharge, to use five lives/platoons in one's companies. Or perhaps less platoons. Possibly there could be military organisation research.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 19

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/20/2016 12:35:08 AM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

I was thinking of the differences between modelling the game as counter = (division) vs counter = (regiment + attached) + (independent Corps Troops battalions)

Some thoughts:

counter = (division)

- would need to change artillery to be able to operate in same counter as other units
- few base land unit counters: infantry division, armoured division, motorized division, (mountain division: no mountain troops in this game)
- I was thinking of how to incorporate the independent Corps Troops into this system. Basically, I think one would attach these independent sub-unit battalions to the other base formations. So to attach an independent Heavy Tank Battalion to a an Infantry Division, say, one would add one Heavy tank sub-unit to it.

How many attached sub-units possible per division? One? Three maybe? Anti-aircraft artillery, which is generally non-divisional would have to be included in these considerations. A list of possible battalions (single sub-units) that could be attached I will describe later.

A problem with doing it this way, is one wouldn't be able to use the TOE system well. With it, one would have to create a new TOE for every possible configuration of attached troops one wanted to use, unless going for a few key types.

counter = (regiment + attached) + (independent Corps Troops battalions)

- all division types are made up of four counters (three of division type, plus one artillery) using the classic triangular military organisation system

Infantry Division:

3 x Infantry Regiments
1 x Artillery Regiment

Armoured Division

1 x Tank Regiment
2 x Mechanized (or Motorized) Infantry Regiments
1 x Armoured Artillery Regiment

(or proportions reversed as 2 x Tank, 1 x Mechanized Infantry, depending on how one is attempting to model it and which historical TOE one is following)

Motorised (or Mechanized) Infantry Division:

3 x Motorised (or Mechanized) Infantry Regiments
1 x Motorised (or Mechanized) Artillery Regiment

Anti-Aircraft Artillery are not technically organic to the divisions (except for armoured divisions), but operate as Anti-Aircraft Regiments that can be attached to divisions as needed on the battlefield (max one per division in my house rules).

The rest of the land forces are those that are not organic to the divisions and exist as Corps Troops. These can be thought of as being under the ownership of Supreme HQ and that are then attached to the sub-ordinate Corps as tactically needed (and which can become, to all intents and purposes, semi-permanently attached to the Corps, serving its component divisions). Unlike the organic divisional support battalions, which are amalgamated into the regiments, these independent battalions exist as separate counters.

Here are a list of potential independent battalions. My house rules are to have only one of each of these types attached to each Corps and it's worked well.

Machine Gun Battalion
Mortar Battalion
Anti-Tank Battalion
Recon Battalion
Armoured Recon Battalion (for use in Armoured Corps instead of Recon Battalion)
Tank Destroyer (Assault Gun) Battalion
(Assault Gun Battalion - Assault Gun for use in assault gun role not yet created)
Heavy Tank Battalion
Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion
Heavy Artillery Battalion
(Combat Engineer Battalion - this unit not yet created)
Engineer Battalion - (although I tend to keep these non-combat units under Supreme HQ control)

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 20

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/20/2016 4:04:31 AM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

I'm working on a Combat Engineer graphic.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 21

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/21/2016 12:22:17 AM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

The T.O.E. of the U.S. Second World War Infantry Division was, like its German counterpart, composed of three Infantry Regiments and a regiment-sized Division Artillery formation.

Here is the organisational structure of an individual U.S. Infantry Regiment showing the companies/batteries contained within:

U.S. Infantry Regiment

1st Infantry Battalion

3 x Rifle
1 x Heavy Weapons

2nd Infantry Battalion

3 x Rifle
1 x Heavy Weapons

3rd Infantry Battalion

3 x Rifle
1 x Heavy Weapons

Cannon Company

1 x Infantry Gun (at 1000 production points, the game's Infantry Gun unit may be too powerful)

Anti-Tank Company

1 x (Anti-Tank gun) (at 1000 production points, the game's AT guns may be too powerful to be used as this unit)

Look familiar? It's identical to the Infantry Regiment of the German 3-battalion system.

Here's the regiment-sized Division Artillery formation of the US Infantry Division:

Division Artillery

1st Light Artillery Battalion

3 x Light Howitzer

2nd Light Artillery Battalion

3 x Light Howitzer

3rd Light Artillery Battalion

3 x Light Howitzer

4th Medium Artillery Battalion

3 x Medium/Heavy Howitzer

Look familiar? It's identical to the Artillery Regiment of the German organisational system.

Both the U.S. and German structures are based on the classic triangular military organisation system, which I believe should serve as the archetype when utilising a system in which one sub-unit represents a company/battery. Unit balance needs to be weighted according to this structure.

So, using the regimental structure, this would be the composition of the archetypal Infantry Regiment:

9 x Rifle
3 x Heavy Weapons (at ratio 2 x MG;1 x Mortar)
1 x Anti-Tank (technically, this would best be represented by a wheeled anti-gun, but, at 1000 prod points, a bazooka might be more appropriate)
1 x Infantry Gun (again, arguably too powerful)

These base Infantry Regiments can be augmented through attaching sub-units from the divisional support battalions. The U.S. Infantry Division T.O.E. has the following (useful in game terms) units:

1 x Engineer Battalion
1 x Cavalry Recon Troop (note this is a platoon-sized unit)

The German Infantry Division, as discussed earlier, had these divisional support battalions, which gave the following bonuses:

1 x Engineer Battalion (not currently being modelled)
1 x Fusilier (recon) Battalion (which gave Infantry Regiments +1 Cavalry recon)
1 x Anti-Tank Battalion (which gave Infantry Regiments +1 Bazooka, although, again, technically this would be an AT gun).

So they've both got an engineer battalion, both a recon formation (albeit a reduced one in the case of the American TOE) and the German Infantry Division has an Anti-Tank Battalion, while the U.S. version does not. So there are potential differences if trying to nail down what a standard model for an Infantry Division would be, although the German and US versions are 95% the same.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 22

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/23/2016 3:24:12 AM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Here's a representation of the Panzer Division's 1944 T.O.E. which I made a couple of years ago for the Panzer Corps game. Each counter represents one company. It's not entirely accurate, as there weren't halftrack recons available in the game to use in the Recon Battalion, so armoured cars have been used instead.

It shows the diversity of different combat unit types contained within the division.

Here are the scales/resolutions, or levels of "zoom", for modelling a division, between division and battalion, along with the number of different counters produced for the German 1944 Panzer Division:

Division scale = ONE counter
Regiment (with divisional support attached to regiments) scale = FOUR counters
Regiment (with divisional support as separate counters) scale = EIGHT counters (four stronger regimental, four weaker battalion)
Battalion scale = THIRTEEN counters

In modelling a division at different scales/resolutions, there are issues to be resolved at every scale. If a division is one counter, then a lot of different unit types are all mixed up together in one counter. If a division is represented by its regiments, then one must either split, disperse and attach the divisional support units between the regiments or field them as separate units, which creates a lot of weak units that exist elsewhere in stronger form at Corps-level. If a division is split into its individual battalions then it is thirteen counters, and there would still be the issue of the two regimental self-propelled infantry gun companies and two regimental combat engineer companies existing outside the battalions and so needing to be attached to them.

The scale that I think would work best for this game - and that I have been using - is regimental with attached support.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 23

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/25/2016 8:17:55 AM

Ormand

Posts: 682
Joined: 2/17/2009
Status: offline

I am interested in what you are looking at. I have been thinking along these lines for awhile. And, to some degree the DC games do this. The main reason to go towards a universal system like this is that the unit sizes can be used at different scales for the units. Basically, units are built in threes. So, you can use platoons for regiments, companies for divisions, and battalions for corps. Basically, the same system can be used for different types of games. The main thing you would have to adjust are ranges for artillery, aircraft, and ships. The larger the unit scale, perhaps the less fine grain is needed. For example, an infantry battalion would probably be all that was needed for corps sized units. On the other hand, the MG, mortars, infantry guns, and anti-tank guns do lend flavor, and allow the player to tailor units to their liking. Thus, while I considered making a heavy-weapons company, I left mortars in for flavor. Basically, it was interesting to have more specialized units. So, while there isn't a mortar company in a division-sized unit, keeping the mortars on a scale similar to a company was still useful, and they basically represented the mortars in the unit. Thus, I play with an infantry division looking like:
27 rifle/smg
9 MG
3 mortar
3 Inf Gun
3 AT Gun
6 horses
3 bazooka

Which more or less follows the basic unit template.

I also changed the armored units to be more like a company as well. So, a reasonable armored division would be:
18 medium tanks
9 Rifle
3 MG
1 Mortar
3 SP Inf Gun
13 Halftracks
3 Light Flak
2 Trucks

My halftracks can only carry one rifle unit. Trucks can carry three (I did this only because they have to have minimum of 1 stackpoint and I needed to make a motorized infantry division without having too many stackpoints).

I think you were talking about having a counter for each regiment in the division, but using, say the scale I outlined above. 9 rifle, 3 MG, 1 Mortar, etc. This could have two problems. First of all, the basic unit size is kind of dictated by the maximum stackpoints allowed in an attack from a single hexside. There is not much incentive to go below this in a game counter since they cost 1 PP each. I don't know how well the AI would adhere to this. Although there are rulevars to try and tell it the size in stackpoints that would be optimal, I've seen it violate this.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 24

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/25/2016 4:36:16 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Your Infantry Division is close to real TOE - I see that there is no divisional artillery, though (only regimental Infantry Gun). To model late war US Infantry Division and German (3-battalion) Infantry Division structure at company-level precisely in this game would produce the following formation*:

27 x Rifle
9 x Heavy Weapons (in game = 6 x MG, 3 x Mortar)
3 x Infantry Gun (game's unit too powerful)
3 x Anti-tank (AT Gun technically, but game's bazooka more appropriate, stats-wise)
3 (or 4) x Engineer (game's engineer is not combat engineer)
3 or 4 x Recon (cavalry/bicycle, best represented by Cavalry in game)
9 x Light Howitzer artillery (the divisional light and heavy howitzers are not easily modelled using current game units)
3 x Heavy Howitzer artillery

EDIT: * the above is a U.S. Infantry Division and a German three-battalion system Infantry Division, minus its Anti-Tank Battalion. It includes the Engineer Battalion and Recon Battalion, which both US and German systems use. The US did have anti-tank battalions, but they were not organic to the divisions, instead effectively functioning as attached Corps Troops. So a German Infantry Division would have another three or four anti-tank companies to add to the list above.

As to what constitutes a "standard" Armoured Division, I think its a bit more complicated. For example, late-war German Panzer Divisions had one tank regiment and two mechanized/motorized infantry regiments. The Americans had a light Armoured Division of one tank regiment and one mech. inf. regiment and a heavy Armoured Division of two tank regiments and one mech. inf.

Although I think both systems are acceptable, personally, I prefer the one tank regiment and two mech./mot. infantry system as it reduces the number of tanks in a division, giving greater operational flexibility in terms of distribution of armoured formations. I also think it is more tactically elegant. In military tactics, tanks should always be supported by infantry. A one-tank regiment system allows the tank regiment to attack a target with one mech./mot regiment in the same hex to support it, while the second mech./mot. infantry regiment provides the flank attack to get the extra hex side bonus. Doing it the other way around would leave one tank regiment without the infantry in same hex support and leave it potentially exposed.

Also, comparing German and US organisation, the tank regiments were structured differently, with the German late-war version using two battalions each of four companies, with one battalion using PzIVs and the other battalion using Panthers. The Americans had three three-company battalions, two of medium tank and one of light tanks.

There is also consideration to be made about what the tanks of the German Panzer Regiment represent. Technically, PzIV and Panther are medium tanks, although the Panther is bigger and better. So, while not technically true, one could represent the PzIVs as light tanks and the Panthers as medium. So, using US tank regiment structure, a tank regiment would be represented by six medium tanks and three light tanks. If following the German system, a tank regiment could be either four medium and four light tanks or eight medium tanks.

Historically, the contents of tank units and formations changed over time. I don't think it would be unrealistic, in this game, to start with a weak tank regiment of six light tanks (two battalions of three companies), change its organisation multiple times over the course of a game and end up with a tank regiment of eight or nine companies of medium tanks.

Over the last few days, I've been working hard to try to create a system of modelling military organisation and unit power using historical Tables of Organizations and Equipment as the starting point.

If one sub-unit is a company, then one is not judging the value of pieces of equipment against each other, but rather their organisations. For example, an artillery battery (company) is typically four guns, while a tank company is around twenty tanks. Similarly, the regimental infantry gun company has double the number of guns as a light howitzer company, so one is not comparing one infantry gun versus one light howitzer when determining their comparative unit strength.

I'm no longer thinking in terms of this game, specifically, in attempting to use an organisation-based, rather than equipment-based, approach to formation structure and effectiveness. I'm now thinking more generally on the topic of using real TOEs as the basis for designing both a game's unit structure and the combat effectiveness of a game's units. When I've finished my analysis, I'll create a thread in General Discussions to discuss it with a wider audience to gain more feedback, as my thinking is no longer framed in terms of this game specifically, but rather on this broader topic as a whole, which has relevance to any Second World War-era military game. I hope you will read it and find it interesting and I would welcome your feedback!

< Message edited by the_iron_duke -- 10/25/2016 5:14:11 PM >

(in reply to Ormand)

Post #: 25

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/25/2016 5:23:12 PM

Ormand

Posts: 682
Joined: 2/17/2009
Status: offline

I kept artillery as a separate entity. Mostly because they still have range, and if you want to use them as an artillery unit they have to be separate, otherwise they eat up all the AP. This is a tricky issue. At 15 miles/hex most artillery unit basically have a range of one hex (all except the biggest guns, such as those on a battleship). The game has an effective artillery system, thus I decided to keep it, and for design reasons, kept the range at 2 hexes. Yes, this is too long for most guns. But, with a range of only one hex, the artillery would have to be in a hex adjacent to the enemy. This would make stacking more complicated. Thus, I kept it. In a corps like scenario, with say 30 mi/hex, artillery would have to be changed into something like the infantry guns. Then, one asks what is the difference, and why make the distinction in the game. This comes into play because you can only use eight SFTypes in a unit.

The auxiliary units like engineers, I also keep separate. I make a small regiment sized unit that represents integrated resources of the army.

For this particular game, there are two things to think of: 1) random games and the evolution of units, and 2) modeling accurate historical battles. For the latter, one mixes up the various SFTypes. For the former, the units are constructed with the equipment you have on hand.

For armor. There is a distinct difference between a PzIV and a PzII. Even a PzIII. I think of PzIII = Medium Tank I, PzIV = Medium Tank II, T=34 = Medium Tank III, and PzV = Medium Tank IV. I also think of a KV-I = Heavy Tank I, Tiger = Heavy Tank III, and King Tiger and JS II = Heavy Tank IV.

I think the Germans reorganized the panzer divisions largely due to equipment shortages. They made a big reorg in 1940 after Poland, which probably did improve functionality. They had two armored brigades and an infantry regiment. They probably had too many tanks too concentrated in a single unit. Thus, they spread them out, and got more divisions. Also, with medium tanks, they just got bigger, and were probably hard to coordinate all of them. But, later on, I think they went through reorganizations to make it seem that the units weren't below their designated strength.

On a different, but related, subject. I also experimented with more HQs. For a division-sized game, I wanted to have corps level HQs, namely three divisions with support. This doesn't work so well. You have to shorten the rulevar controlling max distance from HQ to unit to something like two. But, you find that there is a fair amount of overlap, and the AI doesn't really do it well. So, in the end, I had to skip the next level up HQ. Thus, they are all army sized in a division based game, or Corps for regiments.

(in reply to the_iron_duke)

Post #: 26

RE: I was thinking of changing some stats - 10/25/2016 6:00:30 PM

the_iron_duke

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/7/2016
Status: offline

Regarding artillery range, if I was playing as division = one counter, I would mod artillery to function in the same hex as the rest of the division. That may require changing artillery's unit type to make it function like other units (i.e. not be artillery so as not use the counter's AP). At division = four regimental counters, the map scale is potentially zoomed in a bit, making artillery's two hex range more sensible.

I think division = one counter scale is more of a grand strategy game, while division = thirteen or more battalion counters is certainly much more operational. I think regimental (plus attached divisional support) is more of a blend between the two and will feel more like one or the other in part depending on map scale.

Regarding further HQs, the way I would do it is this (of course, I am using division = four regimental counters plus attached system). So we have Supreme HQ at the top. There are potential intermediary command layers (XXXX Army, XXXXX Army Group) depending on map size, but these are probably largely theoretical (although intermediary HQs can, I believe, help distance supply issues on very large maps). The playable HQ command layer beneath Supreme HQ would be the Corps HQs. Let's take an average Corps, made up of three Infantry Divisions, each containing three Infantry Regiments and an Artillery Regiment, and a basic assortment of Corps Troops: two Anti-Aircraft Regiments, a Recon Battalion, an Anti-Tank Battalion, an Engineer Battalion and a Heavy Artillery Battalion. There would be only one HQ counter - the Corps HQ. The divisions would not have an HQ, but instead their constituent regiments would have a cohesion bonus if they stayed within a certain distance in hexes from each other. This would ensure that the best practise would be to keep the counters within each division together in close proximity on the battlefield. Of course, there'd be another set of bonuses (or penalties) relating to the divisional regiments' proximity to the Corps HQ. The Corps Troops support units and formations are under Corps HQ command and so their proximity bonuses/penalities are only considered in relation to their proximity to the Corps HQ.

(in reply to Ormand)

Post #: 27