Stacking

[KG Erwin]

OMG, Victor, do you actually believe that WWII battles were fought by armor and infantry masses packed shoulder-to-shoulder and wheel-to-wheel like the phalanxes of ancient Greece? Do you?

[vahauser]

Glenn,
 
Are you saying that the troop densities I just cited are not historical?
 
--V

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Glenn,

Are you saying that the troop densities I just cited are not historical?

--V

Check out this chart: http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/crossfire ... ntages.htm

In SPWaW terms, this works out to one or two squads per hex (in most cases). You ignore an important factor--depth.

In my infantry fights, especially in Pacific island assaults against bunkers/caves, I try to use the forward squads to suppress the enemy fire, and have followup assalt teams/ engineers to then move up and destroy the fortification with flame and/or demolitions. That's how it was done. I do NOT have all these stacked up against the position, to be cut down by its MGs.

It's simple common sense, man. Can you not see that?

[Goblin]

All I am asking is for some historical evidence behind an SPWAW stacking rule.  If anybody can produce that historical evidence, then I am very interested.

--V

It's not a 'SPWaW stacking rule'. Its a self imposed limit (definition of a house rule) by one player, that makes a great deal of sense. Someone could easily post where a very small unit held a very large amount of ground (thus an extremely sparse density) to counter your examples, but neither 'proves' anything, since it is about whatever you are comfortable with playing. I also fail to see what your goal is here either, other than possibly arguing for no reason...



Goblin

[KG Erwin]

Thanks, Goblin. Look, I don't wanna gang up on Vahauser here, but in the island assaults he posted, the crowding on the beaches was NOT intentional. The intention was for the leading waves to move FORWARD, with the following waves to support and reinforce. At Iwo Jima it all fell apart, with the Japanese waiting until the beaches were packed with troops before they opened up with everything they had. The difficult terrain (that damnable black sand) kept the leading waves from moving ahead as fast as the Marines had planned, and it was close to being a disaster.

[FlashfyreSP]

Vahauser

Aren't you the very one that "imposes" you own rules for playing the campaign? What is the "Cataclysm Campaign" of yours but an arbitrary set of rules that YOU feel are necessary for playing the game. I don't agree with them, and I won't use them, but that's neither here nor there.

And this "obsession" you have succumbed to about what constitutes "historical" is disturbing...desiring historical accuracy in the force mix does not require that we use historical tactics and doctrine; the point of playing is to see how DIFFERENT tactics, used with the same forces as were available in the real battle, may have changed the outcome. Suppose the British had truly understood and implemented "combined arms" tactics in North Africa: would they have been more successful against the Germans than they were? Possibly...and that's why I play with historical force mixes. But I don't require others to do so; I just feel that it is important to provide, in the OOBs, a force of units that are as accurate to the real units used as the game can handle.

[KG Erwin]

Flashfyre, this isn't so much about force mixes as it is about my self-imposed "stacking rule", which to my mind is just common sense. I will NOT stack up three infantry squads and half-a-dozen tanks in one hex --- that's just dumb, IMHO. A good PBEM opponent would turn that into a pile of junk and dead bodies in short order.

[vahauser]

FlashFyre,
 
Cataclysm is basically YOUR campaign template modifed to fit a Generated Campaign instead of a WW2 Long Campaign.  Indeed, the differences between the Cataclysm and FlashFyre formats are very minor.  But that's not the point.  Whether you play FlashFyre or Cataclysm, neither of those campaign formats make judgments on what is "historical" or not.  Anybody can play either of those campaign formats and still apply historical forces and historical doctrines.  Both campaign formats are "historical independent" as it were.  Stacking rules, however, make some HUGE assumptions about what is and is not historical.  And that is what I am trying to discuss here.
 
 
Goblin,
 
You say that stacking rules "make sense".  But they don't yet make sense to me.  Hence this thread.  Indeed, I am trying to make sense out of stacking rules.  So far to no avail.  Also, defensive frontages are meaningless in this discussion.  Everybody knows that units could be strung out for miles defensively.  I'm more interested in assault frontages, because that is where the densities are highest.  Historical instances of assault frontages are what I'm looking for.
 
 
Glenn,
 
That is an interesting theoretical table you've supplied.  Unfortunately, the numbers given seen to vary wildly and seem to be based on theoretical models instead of what actually took place on the battlefield.  I'm looking for actual historical on-the-battlefield assault densities.  For example, that 4km assault frontage for a 1940 Soviet Rifle division is obviously of little value because they attacked the Finns on much narrower frontages during the Winter War, and they had to completely reinvent their tactical doctrines as soon as the Germans invaded in 1941. 
As an aside, I had a working acquaintance with Charles Sharp (the C.S. Sharp on your list) during the early 1990s when I was on the staff of the Europa Boardgame Series.  At that time he had just received his PhD and was working on a comprehensive Soviet OOB for WW2.  We had some wonderful arguments.  Heh.
Anyway, the theoretical models are nice and they are pretty, but I'm looking for actual historical assault frontages.  I am currently googling on the web for some actual combat maps with units and frontages.  I have found a few but want to find more.  Of interest, though, one Soviet map (from a source by David Glantz) has the entire II SS Panzer Corps attacking at Kursk on a frontage of roughly 10km (3 reinforced SS Panzer Divisions (yes, I know they were called panzergrenadier divisions but we all know they were panzer divisions) plus corps assets assaulting on a frontage of roughly 10km).  THAT is the kind of historical data I'm looking for.  I'm also looking for the actual unit maps for Peleliu and Iwo Jima to learn about actual battalion/company frontages on those islands.  Battle of the Bulge, Berlin, Stalingrad, Vistula-Oder, etc.  Those are the kinds of unit maps I seek.
 
--V

[vahauser]

Here is the kind of historical information I'm looking for:

http://www.winterwar.com/Maps/Frontline2.htm

Here is an excerpt from that webpage:

"The Soviet side
The high command of the Red Army, after the attacks in December were repulsed, noted serious flaws in their own organization and armed forces in general. The doctrines and theories, that had been used until now weren't usable in the Finnish terrain.
After the large scale attacks on the Isthmus were canceled in late December - early January, the high command started to the preparations to win the war. Because the Karelian Isthmus offered the fastest way to victory, it was decided to concentrate the needed forces there.
At first, the leadership was rearranged. In the isthmus a new northwestern front (Army Group) was formed with Army commander 1st Class S. K. Timoshenko as the commander.
K. A. Meretskov continued as the commander of the 7th army on the west side of the isthmus and Army commander 2nd Class V. D. Grendal was still on charge of the 13th Army, formed in 25th December.
At the end of January, the number of Soviet forces on the Karelian Isthmus had grown to consist the following units:

Unit type 7th Army 13th Army Total
Infantry divisions 12 9 21
Army group artillery regiments 7 6 13
Corps artillery regiments 4 3 7
Super heavy artillery battalions 2 2 4
Tank brigades 5 1 6
Machine gun brigades 1 1
Separate tank battalions 2 2 4
Aircraft regiments 10 5 15
Cavalry regiments 1 1

In addition to these forces, the Soviet High Command formed a reserve group with 3 inf. divisions, 1 tank brigade and a cavalry Corps.
(The information on the reserve group varies by different Soviet sources, other sources indicate that the reserve group had only 2 divisions and the total infantry division number on the isthmus was 23, and depending on the source, the number of units is somewhat the same.)
The Soviet war-machine was almost ready to launch, this time a very well prepared and practiced, offensive against the Mannerheim-line.
Two thirds of the artillery and some 60 % of the Soviet forces on the Isthmus were concentrated against the Finnish II Corps between Vuoksi and Karhula. The result was, that on the chosen 40 km long front, the approximate Soviet strength per kilometer of front was between 2 - 4.5 infantry battalions and 50 - 70 artillery pieces."

That density yields an average of about 3 battalions and 60 guns per kilometer of front, which is about 7 hexes (350 yards) per battalion and 3 guns per hex. Clearly there must be some depth, but the point is that the actual historical attack frontage for this Soviet assault against the Mannerheim Line on 9 February 1940 averaged 1 battalion per 7 hexes (350 yards) of frontage.

I think other WW2 assaults used comparable densities. That is the thesis I am seeking to prove or disprove. I will be posting other data as I discover it.

--V

[vahauser]

I found another map from the Battle for Okinawa taken from the Official US Military History.

This map shows the attack of the 96th Infantry Division from 20-24 April 1945. The total divisional attack frontage is less than 2km (around 40 hexes for the divisional attack frontage)

Notice that every single battalion attack frontage is less than 500 yards for each of the five days of this attack. Notice especially that the attack launched against the Nishiboru Ridge on the 20th, by the 1/381 and 2/381, is made on a very narrow frontage (the 2/381 on a frontage of about 300 yards (6 hexes) and the 1/381 on a frontage of about 250 yards (5 hexes)).

[Goblin]

I give up. I recommend everyone else do so also. [8|]
 
 
 
Goblin

[Veroporo]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

No, my friend, I never suggested that anyone MUST play with stacking rules. I do this just in MY solo games. Let there be no misconceptions here. This is strictly a personal rule, OK?

Ok, my bad. [:)]

[robot]

I think what gunny is saying, this is a rule he has set up for his own personal pleasure in playing his game. Not something he advocates for any one else just him. Same way I have a personal rule for my own pleasure in playing this game. I never use more then three batteries of off board in an assault and this is primarially in blasting a hole thru the enemys minefield. And in a defend I never use more then two batteries of off board. Plus i never allow myself more then 70 mines in a defend no matter the size of the map. Now these are my rules no matter if its historical or not I dont expect anyone else to use these rules. Of course im not an historical player so that fact is mute. But too me it just makes sense not to overstack a 50 yard wide space with too many men or tanks. But then my hex is only 50 feet not yards as I dont use yards as a measurement. We all play different anyways and still enjoy playing in our own ways right. Litttle things that we do in the game makes it more enjoyable to us and thats what really our little rules to our selves are about right gunny.

By the ways guys wasnt there a way to change the yards to feet in the game. Isnt there a key press that does this. If any one knows could you tell me.

[Alby]

Has no one ever heard the phrase...."Don't bunch up"
[:D]
 
[:'(]

[KG Erwin]

Robot: to change from yards to meters to hexes use the @ key.

[robot]

Thanx Gunny

[Oldguard1970]

Hello Vahauser,
 
One fun part of this game is that we are able to enjoy trying multiple methods to deal with various circumstances.  Unfortunately, the AI doesn't have the skill to learn or to react particularly well.  For instance, if I am playing against the poor old AI, I can purchase one ammo unit and surround it with all sorts of arty units.  Then I can blaze away with huge amounts of indirect fire.  Of course, if I try that trick against my live opponent, he targets my concentration, and I get clobbered.  So, as a self-imposed rule, when I play against the AI, I pretend that it could be clever enough to hit back.  Therefore, I remain dispersed. 
 
KG says that he also restrains himself when playing solo.  Heavy stacking against a live opponent is permitted in the game, but risky, so he avoids it.  The risk shrinks in solo play, so he uses his personal "house rule" against heavy stacking rather than take advantage of AI limitations.
 
That's my attempt to answer your question about the reasoning behind the rule.  Hope it helps.
 
What a great game!

[vahauser]

robot & OldGuard1970,
 
Yes.  I know precisely WHY KG Erwin uses some sort of stacking rules (even though he himself just "wings it" using seat-of-the-pants gaming, since he has never written his stacking rules down for consistent application from game to game).  But I know WHY he does it.  That isn't the issue.
 
I have stated on this and on other threads (see my DARs) that my battlegroups (based on a "large-battalion" sized core) advance and attack using historical WW2 frontages of between 8 and 10 hexes (400 and 500 yards).
 
Over the past day or two I have spent hours going over detailed actual combat maps in Russia in Europe in the Pacific, etc. (using Google).  Those detailed combat maps (of which I have provided two in this thread), confirm that historical combat battalions did indeed attack on frontages of 500 yards and often less.
 
Goblin has stated that stacking rules "make sense" (for single player vs. the computer).  What I am trying to do is determine what KIND of stacking rules would make "historical sense".
 
For example, I play with C&C ON and KG Erwin plays with C&C OFF.  If I try to emply some kind of stacking rule based on the limited information that KG Erwin has supplied (since he has no written rules), my bet is that many of my units will go out of command.
 
Based on historical reports and historical combat maps, and playing with C&C ON (as I do), I am willing to try to merge history with game and come up with some sort of stacking rule that is compatible with C&C ON and still has some history backing it up.
 
The historical part is important.  It is important because there are a lot of people on this forum who claim to be "historical" gamers.  And if a player is going to claim to be "historical", then he better be historical across the board because "breaking the historical chain" at any point along the line weakens (or invalidates) claims to being an "historical" gamer.
 
FlashFyre has stated that the game limits the maximum formation size to 10 units (typically motorized/mechanized infantry platoons).  My current belief is that allowing one platoon to occupy one hex is both fully compatible with C&C ON and is also historical in that such a basic "stacking rule" would not violate historical attack frontages.
 
That was easy enough.  The hard part comes when trying to figure out all the special cases like:  what about mixed stacks that contain units from multiple formations?  what about when units retreat/rout into a hex and "overstack" it?  what about when enemy units enter a friendly hex?  and others I haven't thought of yet.
 
I don't know yet if it is possible to make a stacking rule for SPWAW (single player vs. computer) that is both historical and is compatible with C&C ON, but I'm giving it some thought.
 
--V

[Goblin]

vahauser,
 
I find it hard to believe anyone who would stack twenty four 203mm howitzers into a hex 150 ft across cares anything about stacking in the game.
 
Taking a shot at Glenn because of not writing down his house rules wasn't called for either. Who writes down every rule they impose on themselves in a game? I try and drop my infiltrators at least 5 hexes from a victory hex and no closer in games. Written down? Nope. Followed? Yep. The point of house rules is playing your own way. You want to figure out your own rules, do it. Don't sit here and take shots at others about how they like to play, or because they don't write down something that can easily be remembered.
 
Do your research (like how large a 203mm howitzer is, how much room it needs with crew and ammo, and how many you could possibly jam into a single hex with an ammo supply and still have anyone be able to move without crawling over guns to do it), decide on a rule for yourself, and post it if you like.
 
 
 
Goblin

[Goblin]

Ok, unlocking this one. Let's please not take shots at other members, vahauser included, ok?
 
 
 
Goblin