Unit size for senario creation

[leastonh1]

EasyGreen - I'm sorry your thread got sort of hijacked. My sincere apologies. I hope some of the almost ot info was of use though.

Regards,
Jim

[kevinkins]

[font=arial]
I think a lot of long time wargamers are scratching their heads at the abstract nature (call it flexible) of AT. Hex size was explained above but I think we want to know how to build historical units. What does a single AT infantry, tank, MG etc. we purchase represent in real life?
Look above, what does 50 infantry units within a larger unit represent? Why is that a German infantry division? 16500 / 500 = 330 soldiers per 50 units. Are these battalions ? If so there seem to be too many.  [/font][/align] 
Kevin

[EasyGreen]

No need for apologies. This is just the kind of information I was looking for.

[tweber]

I think a lot of long time wargamers are scratching their heads at the abstract nature (call it flexible) of AT. Hex size was explained above but I think we want to know how to build historical units. What does a single AT infantry, tank, MG etc. we purchase represent in real life?
Look above, what does 50 infantry units within a larger unit represent? Why is that a German infantry division? 16500 / 500 = 330 soldiers per 50 units. Are these battalions ? If so there seem to be too many.

When putting together the scenario, I was less concerned with absolute modeling than relative modeling. Does the relative strengths of the 2 sides seem right? Do they have a reasonable chance of performing similar to the historical campaign given equal playing skill?

If you have any suggestions as to a more historic order of battle that works within time and map scale, I would be happy to help you make a variant of the scenario.

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

[font=arial]
I think a lot of long time wargamers are scratching their heads at the abstract nature (call it flexible) of AT. Hex size was explained above but I think we want to know how to build historical units. What does a single AT infantry, tank, MG etc. we purchase represent in real life?
[/font][/align]

I think you must take in consideration also the stacking points, i.e. if you think in a hex only 3 divisions could fight well best have about 30 stacking points per division...

[kevinkins]

Another way to ask the question is at the lowest level what does the combat power of a single rifle infantry or single tank represent? If its all relative then they could represent a single man or tank or much larger formations as long as all sides are in balance. A panzer division could be a single unit "chit" within which you have :
 
4 tank unit = 4 tank battalions
4 Mot rifle units = 4 Mot rifle battalions
3 Arty units = 3 Arty  battalions
1 Arm Car = 1 Recon battalion
1 Mot AT unit = 1 Mot AT battalion
1 Mot Eng unit = 1 Mot Eng battalion
for 14 subformations in a singel  Pz division unit or "chit"
 
But that begs the question .. is that the right amount of ENGINEERING capability and overall combat balance? 

[rickier65]

Kevin,

I think that the answer is only relvent within the context of a specific scenario. tweber has indicated he didn't model his scenario in quite that way.

Before buying AT, I was also asking myself these same questions, but reading some of the modding threads made methink it was worth a shot to get it and see how things could be done. So far I've been pretty happy with it.

Back to your question, the "meaning" of 1 Lt Tank Unit or 1 Infantry unit can vary. In the Africa Scenario, it looks like Vic has at least loosly chosen Unit counters to represent Divisions.

I'm in the process of doing my first scenario on Salerno, and I think I'll shoot for Bn size units, but I haven't figured out how many Infanty strength points will be in a unit yet, becasue I haven't gotten there yet, it will depend on a few factors such as Stacking limits I decide to use (either 100, or whatever I adjust them to), what turn or round duration I select, How many hexes I decide to use to represent the area, what build capacity I decide to allow. I dont think building a strict historically accurate scenario is going to be easy with this editor, mainly because it is extremely flexible.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the community scenario builders get moving with this game, I think we're going to see some pretty diverse implementations. So farm I'm pretty impressed with both the game, and equally(if not more) so with the editor.

Sorry for the long non-answer.

Rick

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

[font=arial]
I think a lot of long time wargamers are scratching their heads at the abstract nature (call it flexible) of AT. Hex size was explained above but I think we want to know how to build historical units. What does a single AT infantry, tank, MG etc. we purchase represent in real life?
Look above, what does 50 infantry units within a larger unit represent? Why is that a German infantry division? 16500 / 500 = 330 soldiers per 50 units. Are these battalions ? If so there seem to be too many.  [/font][/align] 
Kevin

Yep, this is exactly what I'm trying to get at...the great thing about AT is its flexibility, but it does leave you "scratching your head" as to what equals what. Because the game can take on different scales, 1 Rifle is going to equal different things for different scenarios, and that's fine, I'm not asking for set size for 1 Rifle unit. My question has always been what is 1 Rifle in relation to 1 AT? Or 1 Light Tank? Hate to lay it out again, but if I'm deciding to create a standard German WWII division (for whatever year, that's not the point), and I arbitrarily decide that there is going to be 30 Rifle in that division (because of stacking reasons, whatever), if I know in reality how many AT units where in that division, how do I relate that to the game? What is that ratio?

Let's use Jim_H's post above for numbers:
13,400 enlisted troops
75 AT guns

This is a ratio of about 178:1, which is too out of wack for the game...where do we go from here? Well, we can say that 1 Rifle in the game is actually 6 men, and 1 AT in the game is one AT gun in real life. Then we have something like this:

30 Rifle
1 AT

This looks reasonable, compared to already created scenarios...but what about the other units? 1 AT in the game equals 75 real AT, so for machine guns we have 500/75 = about 6 or 7 MG. This seems a bit high in a unit with 30 Rifle when I look at the scenarios.

Anyway, this is long and somewhat boring and might not have anything to do with the enjoyment of the game, but for historical scenario creation, I think it's important. I don't expect any hard and fast rules from Vic or tweber on this, I think it's exactly as tweber said:
"I think making the unit ratios is part fact, part guess work, and part adjustments based on the actual mechanics of the game."

This is reasonable considering the flexible nature of this game.

[leastonh1]

To be able to design a scenario based on WWI, WWII or something else whilst constraining the equipment lists to remain within the historical context of any/all would be impossible. The Divisional lists I posted above for 1939 are going to be quite different to the lists for 1945, yet for the purposes of a wargame these are still generally within the bounds of the same historical period. The map size and scale is also a consideration.
 
To leave it to the designer, as Tom said, to determine what works best for their particular scenario is brilliant imo. What would the posts in this forum be like if we had a game touted as being capable of creating scenarios for almost any period, yet Vic had forced us to use WWII unit scales (comparitive)?
 
Yes, I know I'm a fanboy and all that, but I still cannot honestly remember ever seeing such a flexible system as this one with such enormous potential for scenario designers. You can do anything you like and make it credible.
 
Just my 2p.
 
Regards,
Jim

[kevinkins]

But still the player wants to know what they are fighting with and with historical battles that the OOBs conform somewhat to history. This will date me. But I recall the game Perfect General and the WW2 add-on. The battles felt like WW2 and played fine but the level of abstraction was very high. I am getting that same feeling now with AT. This is not a bad thing. But I think the flexibilty with AT can allow for accurate OOBs hence all the questions. Scenario designers can have detailed design notes to explain how they arrived at their force structure. I have been enjoying an AT random with about 50% water all week. I like the system and want to understand the nit and gritty a bit better before I hit the editor.
 
Kevin

[leastonh1]

@kevinkin
I can't date it exactly, but also remember Perfect General and still have my copy somewhere! It's interesting you mention the abstraction of that game. I remember it now, but whilst playing the game I don't think it was that noticeable most of the time and I guess that's because the game dev made it possible for the scenario designers to work with some measure of flexibility. This also goes for AT and I do understand the reasoning behind the questions you and others are asking.

@all
But, to play devil's advocate, at what point do you draw the line and stop trying to be accurate or realistic or whatever word you want to use?
I'm not a designer. It's not something I've ever really wanted to try before AT and so am coming at this with a purely player's hat on. Perhaps I'm being a little too simplistic, I am not pretending to be a purist...but, if someone presents me with a WWII scenario for this game, with the unit names and equipment lists looking reasonable, along with a plausible scenario premise, I'm happy to suspend disbelief (this is a game after all!) and just enjoy the experience. However, I appreciate that there are people out there who would also balk if presented with a scenario where the calculation for the thickness of the front turret armour of a Pz Kpfw Panther II was 10mm out (it was 100mm by the way, and I wonder how many will check this!! [:'(]). To me, that's one step (or several) too far and takes something away from what should be fun, a game.
 
By definition, you must have abstraction in a wargame. It is just not possible to factor in all calculations needed to turn it into a simulation rather than a game and I'd never play another if and when that happened. To use the Panther example again, why not factor in the number of crew (5) who can bail and survive, so 10 tanks destroyed = potentially 50 troops on the battlefield. Would a designer really need to look at the exact scale of their map, work out that at the max speed of 46km/h a Panther would (providing it could travel that fast constantly) move through three hexes in one turn etc. etc. I know it's silly, but I think some people are in danger of going too deep. Just adapt what feels right and seems right and balanced in playtesting and release. If the scenario is way out on something, the players will soon mention it and a modified version can be released.
 
Flames on a postcard to....[;)]
 
Regards,
Jim

[Panzeh]

By definition, you must have abstraction in a wargame. It is just not possible to factor in all calculations needed to turn it into a simulation rather than a game and I'd never play another if and when that happened. To use the Panther example again, why not factor in the number of crew (5) who can bail and survive, so 10 tanks destroyed = potentially 50 troops on the battlefield. Would a designer really need to look at the exact scale of their map, work out that at the max speed of 46km/h a Panther would (providing it could travel that fast constantly) move through three hexes in one turn etc. etc. I know it's silly, but I think some people are in danger of going too deep. Just adapt what feels right and seems right and balanced in playtesting and release. If the scenario is way out on something, the players will soon mention it and a modified version can be released.

More 'realistic' wargames get by with even bigger abstractions, such as having a unit have 2 states or consisting of 'steps', whatever the hell those mean. I mean rarely is an entire division eliminated even when casualties are larger than multiple divisions' strengths.

[kevinkins]

Perfect General did not have an editor if I recall. The breakthrough if I recall was East Front by Tiller et. al.. Highly defined OOBs and maps sizes/scales. Then came Combat Mission with the same but lower tactical level and 3D. Of course I am just talking about ground warfare.
 
It seems possible to create OOBs based on history. But we need to understand the what a basic unit and supply represents and how they interact with the enemy. Does 1 medium tank = 4 light tanks? I dont know. I know if a surround a Tiger with 4 T-34s its history at the right range.
 
If AT turns out to be Perfect General with a great editor and the best supply rules its still a wonderful product. I am just trying to probe what is possible.
 
Kevin
 
 

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

@kevinkin
I can't date it exactly, but also remember Perfect General and still have my copy somewhere! It's interesting you mention the abstraction of that game. I remember it now, but whilst playing the game I don't think it was that noticeable most of the time and I guess that's because the game dev made it possible for the scenario designers to work with some measure of flexibility. This also goes for AT and I do understand the reasoning behind the questions you and others are asking.

@all
But, to play devil's advocate, at what point do you draw the line and stop trying to be accurate or realistic or whatever word you want to use?
I'm not a designer. It's not something I've ever really wanted to try before AT and so am coming at this with a purely player's hat on. Perhaps I'm being a little too simplistic, I am not pretending to be a purist...but, if someone presents me with a WWII scenario for this game, with the unit names and equipment lists looking reasonable, along with a plausible scenario premise, I'm happy to suspend disbelief (this is a game after all!) and just enjoy the experience. However, I appreciate that there are people out there who would also balk if presented with a scenario where the calculation for the thickness of the front turret armour of a Pz Kpfw Panther II was 10mm out (it was 100mm by the way, and I wonder how many will check this!! [:'(]). To me, that's one step (or several) too far and takes something away from what should be fun, a game.

By definition, you must have abstraction in a wargame. It is just not possible to factor in all calculations needed to turn it into a simulation rather than a game and I'd never play another if and when that happened. To use the Panther example again, why not factor in the number of crew (5) who can bail and survive, so 10 tanks destroyed = potentially 50 troops on the battlefield. Would a designer really need to look at the exact scale of their map, work out that at the max speed of 46km/h a Panther would (providing it could travel that fast constantly) move through three hexes in one turn etc. etc. I know it's silly, but I think some people are in danger of going too deep. Just adapt what feels right and seems right and balanced in playtesting and release. If the scenario is way out on something, the players will soon mention it and a modified version can be released.

Flames on a postcard to....[;)]

Regards,
Jim

I totally agree, playability of the game is the most important, there are already plenty of games out there that go pretty deep (TOAW comes to mind). And as far as playing the WWII scenarios, I usually just accept what the designer has created and then enjoy the game...I think it's more for the scenario creation that these issues come to light...you're sitting there trying to construct a US infantry battalion, and you're how many MG's, how many mortars, etc.

Again, as tweber alluded to, I think you just have to try something, experiment, see what works with the scale you've decided on, and the production, etc., and try to make a scenario that WORKS.

[TPM]

I'm starting to think that if I'm going to create a scenario, I'll probably just start with some that have already been made and tweak it from there. We have to assume that Vic and tweber (and whoever else), have already gone through all these agonizing calculations...I'm thinking if I were going to make a fictional scenario (set with WWII units) at the corps, it might be a good idea to just start with tweber's Russia scenario and then go from there...

[Awac835]

I think you can only fail if you really try to balance each subformation out by saying this is a company, so many companys in a division so many in a army etc. You will always run into trouble somewhere i think. As a poster above said. If you say this unit is this and that, but then suddenly you stand with a transport ship that can ferry a whole armygroup or nothing more then a single company. Or find that becouse of the stack limit in attacks it would be unrealistic. Also if you dont figure in production, those units will be suddenly grow in size where you have super units moving around with 999 in combat power.
 
Only way you can really make it all fit together the way you want is to make a new master file and set the limits on stack, transport, production, combat power etc.
 
With the generic its all to abstracted. Like Tweber said. You can only really do it in reletive terms bewteen different units.

[Max 86]

Here is my formula for division level games. The intent is to have all the major elements of a division in suitable numbers to best reflect partial casualties in a particular combat without losing all of the division's capabilities. Also, I have put aside the one for one comparison and have tried different multipliers for different unit types.
 
Inf Btns: multiply # of Btns by 10 (Inf Div with 3 INf Reg/6 yields 60 infantry. Out of that 60, 40 Rfl, 10 SMG, last 10 between mtrs, bazookas, IGs and MGs, player discretion according to mission.)
 
Eng Bn X 10 also. So one Eng Btn in the division = 10 Engs
 
Divisions usually had Rcn, Arty, AT, Flak Btns. For these battalions multiply by 2 or 3 ( I haven't decided yet). So each division with a Rcn Btn will have 2-3 Scouts or Scout Cars. Same for the other elements.
 
Transportation I try to keep simple; Mechanized Divs have halftrack/truck mix, Motorized Divs have trucks only and non-motor/mech (groundpounders) use 3:1 horses to truck ratio. Unless the scenario calls for a lack of transport, supply enough of the correct transport for the entire division.
 
Tanks represent a different animal entirely, initially I thouught 1 tank per tank company in the division but that would lead to as many as 16 tank units for a 2-Tank-Regiment division which is way overpowered for this game. So, try using one tank per tank type per regiment. Confused yet?
 
An early '42 German Pzr div might consist of 1 Pzr regiment with a PzII company, 2 PZIII companies and a PzIV company (Based on the Campaign Series model for sake of discussion). This means that this division would receive 1 Lt tank and 3 Med Tanks with the PZIV classified as a medium. I am planning to allow both Med Tk 1 and Med Tk 2 to be produced simultaneously (if possible) to represent the PZIII and PZIV medium classes.
 
A 2-regiment tank division based on the model above would have 2 Lt tanks and 6 mediums.
 
To summarize;
 
Inf Div with 3 Inf regiments and Rcn, Arty, AT, Flak Btns would consist of:
 
40 Rfl, 10 SMG, 3Mtr, 3MGs, 2IGs, 2 Bazookas
10 Engs
2-3 Arty
2-3 Scouts
2-3 AT guns
2-3 Flaks
 
Tank Div with 2 Tk Regiments and Rcn, Arty, AT, Flak Btns would consist of:
2 Light tanks and 6 Medium tanks
10 Engs
2-3 Arty
2-3 Scouts
2-3 AT guns
2-3 Flaks
 
Again, the idea is to be able to send these divisions into combat and sustain a few losses without necessarily losing divisional capabilities like Rcn, Arty and so forth; but prolonged combat will still grind them up into a shell of their former selves.
 
The Hv tank Btns is another situation completely because the heavy tanks are so powerful in this game. I use 2 Heavys, 1 light and a 2 scout cars.  Only 5 units but they pack quite a punch and if losses do occur, it will not necessarily be the heavys that are lost.  I may remove the scouts and add light tanks because I am not sure if these Hvy Btns carried a scout company or not. Must research!
 
This is not set in stone but just a template to go by. Still use historical data to flesh them out. For example, I don't think Russian tank divisions had any mobile arty so do not inclued Arty in the Soviet tank divisions.  Some divisions did not have Rcn cars so use foot scouts instead. stuff like that.
 
I know this must be a great game because I have started a notebook for keeping track of things! [:D]
 
 

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Awac835

I think you can only fail if you really try to balance each subformation out by saying this is a company, so many companys in a division so many in a army etc. You will always run into trouble somewhere i think. As a poster above said. If you say this unit is this and that, but then suddenly you stand with a transport ship that can ferry a whole armygroup or nothing more then a single company. Or find that becouse of the stack limit in attacks it would be unrealistic. Also if you dont figure in production, those units will be suddenly grow in size where you have super units moving around with 999 in combat power.

Only way you can really make it all fit together the way you want is to make a new master file and set the limits on stack, transport, production, combat power etc.

With the generic its all to abstracted. Like Tweber said. You can only really do it in reletive terms bewteen different units.

You're right on here!

[kevinkins]

Nicely done Max. Is there a way to save OOBs as files for re-use?
 
Kevin

[Erik Rutins]

Those seem like very reasonable deductions to me, Max - I think you have a workable formula there. Don't forget to add some infantry for those armored divisions too though, they generally had their own organic armored/mechanized/motorized infantry regiment.