OOB 324

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

In the game many US divisions has 18000 men, and British ones often around 20 000 men... the Jap ones often only has 15 500... Should not the Jap ones be far bigger if they have more men pr platoon, company and battalion... and more battalions and so on.. ?? (PS: Late war numbers, check Ground Reinforcement's and sort by Assault Value to get a good late war ave.)

A "standard TO&E" US infantry Division by the time most saw combat had a strength of about 14,250 men. But because of "pool" attachments hardly any ever fought at this strength. Any number of additional battalions of armor, tank-destroyers, artillery, engineers, anti-aircraft and other units could and would be attached to units going into combat. So 18,000 is not out of the realms of reason.

Just as an aside, there were actually more tanks in the US Army's Pool tank bns. than there were in it's 17 Armored Divisions.

[Andy Mac]

In general US forces have a lot more firepower than any other nation - Brit Divs are mroe than a bit bloated with support and rear area bods
 
 

[Andy Mac]

p.s. all nations were done the way John and K describe above but then some 'overlays' were made
 
Probably the most important one in game terms is the 1941 Indian Rifle Squads
 
The Soft Attack of these Squads was reduced to reflect the real shortage of small arms in the Indian Army at this time - they were not just short of support weapons at a squad and platoon level they were missing LMG's. 2" Morters etc etc - so there is a 'special' reduction to firepower for these squads which goes away 2/42 when the Indian 42 squad becomes available

[Central Blue]

My thanks to the devs who have chimed in with the behind the scenes look at how things were done on the land side: JWE, Kereguelen, and Andy Mac. My apologies if I missed anyone.

While I have never put much effort into modding this game, or it's illustrious predecessors, the numbers for land devices at least; has always seemed more properly scaled than in TOAW. And I have often looked at the WITP database while futzing with mods to TOAW.

I don't suppose that many of the studies referred to by JWE are available on line?

Kudos (what old people say instead of props) to Matrix Games for all that it has done to empower the community of users that know a lot more than I do.

[Mynok]

Weren't some of the Japanese divisions 4 regiments vs 3? How was this adjusted/designed?

[Barb]

Japanese squared divisions were losing their 4th regiments for a few years forming new divivisons, brigades and regiments.

For example 5th Infantry division in battle of Malaya was Square division. However in the game the fourth regiment of the division sailing into Malaya is there as part of another division (41st regiment of 30th Division).

Throughout the war there were only 3 standard Japanese divisional TOE: type A division (reinforced), Type B division (standard) and Type C division (without much artillery).

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
My thanks to the devs who have chimed in with the behind the scenes look at how things were done on the land side: JWE, Kereguelen, and Andy Mac. My apologies if I missed anyone.

While I have never put much effort into modding this game, or it's illustrious predecessors, the numbers for land devices at least; has always seemed more properly scaled than in TOAW. And I have often looked at the WITP database while futzing with mods to TOAW.

I don't suppose that many of the studies referred to by JWE are available on line?

Kudos (what old people say instead of props) to Matrix Games for all that it has done to empower the community of users that know a lot more than I do.

You are very welcome.

Don't think that any of that stuff is on-line, but you never know. Reviewing the design notes, the Sov stuff was from 2nd Directorate, GRU in 1953, analyzing Korea. Perhaps some of our Russian, or even Polish, forum brothers can find something on-line from the Lefertovo archives.

The US and Belgian stuff (and some similar NATO crap) is catalogued pretty well in the archives at Carlisle, PA. Some of the US forum brothers are very convenient to Carlisle Barracks, and they might be willing to search and scan a pdf or two for you.

I do not wish to post the individual weapon values, because of the pre-teen whining potential, but if you send a pm, I will respond, along with a bit of explanation.

[JWE]

Thanks for the pm Mike. As I mentioned you have a bit of a misconception. Load Cost is load cost, nothing more. It is not “troops”. If you are worried about the number of bodies, those are found to the right of the picture: Infantry and Other. Infantry is the sum of the LCs of all AV capable Devices; Other is the sum of the LCs for everything else. Add them up and you get a reasonable abstraction of the troops in the unit.

Bottom left is the “Costs To Load” the unit. It is given in terms of the “Troop” and “Cargo” loading multiples and has nothing whatever to do with how many bodies are present. It has everything to do with how many big guns, vehicles, tanks, motor support, etc.. you have as a percentage of the unit.

Below is a test division, with 4179 + 11362 = 15541 “troops”, but has many “vehicle’ type devices, so has a Total Load Cost of 29149.

Below that is another test division with 4119 + 9521 = 13640 “troops”, but without the vehicles, and so has a Total Load Cost of 15946; 12% fewer “troops”, but with 55% of the load cost. Don't confuse the two.