Pelton;
Excess armaments and combat value increase is a reason I am exploring this concept. An arms points pool of hundreds of thousands is impractical. An arms point is not going to eliminate the enemy, an LMG or SMG will.
BTW when I place the Company and platoon Headquarters elements in the late war OOB's it seems to increase the combat value enough to (partially) offset the lowered morale effects. The Soviets get the same benefit in the first summer. Gives them a reason to hold ground and perhaps even counteraatack.
Missing Weapons
Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
RE: Missing Weapons
ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.
The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)
Patience, young Padawan.
This sounds like the unit-density question that I sometimes think of but isn't talked about much.
Games are designed with the idea that any piece of equipment in a battle could reach any piece of the other side, but what if the unit density of one side is not that much? For your example are all those 4500 AT rifles in a position where a PZ IV may wander over close for a shot to happen?
That is, couldn't those Pz's be on a narrow frontage, leaving a few miles without no Pz's attacking?
RE: Missing Weapons
ORIGINAL: randallw
ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.
The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)
Patience, young Padawan.
This sounds like the unit-density question that I sometimes think of but isn't talked about much.
Games are designed with the idea that any piece of equipment in a battle could reach any piece of the other side, but what if the unit density of one side is not that much? For your example are all those 4500 AT rifles in a position where a PZ IV may wander over close for a shot to happen?
That is, couldn't those Pz's be on a narrow frontage, leaving a few miles without no Pz's attacking?
Not a unit density question but another element that's AFAIK not accounted for in the combat model.
Only a certain percentage of weapons/units should be able to fire. Even when a Corps attacks a Division, only a portion of the close range elements are fighting each other at any one time.
The percentage able to fire should be inversely proportional to range, so the lower the range, the fewer shots (adjusted for ROF) it can make. The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times. TOAW IMO modelled this quite well.
This should work out to all the Artillery being able to fire, a sizable % of the mortars und Inf guns, etc, descending to the mighty SMG. This would give Artillery it's proper due while also giving some help to the defender.
As it works now, Artillery fires a bit, mortars making a killing because they can fire in more than on range band and SMG dominating the close range fire fight because they are not penalised for their very short range.
RE: Missing Weapons
ORIGINAL: MechFO
The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times.
Can you elaborate a bit please, as I don't see how defender can bring a bigger amount of weapons to bear.
RE: Missing Weapons
ORIGINAL: Karri
ORIGINAL: MechFO
The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times.
Can you elaborate a bit please, as I don't see how defender can bring a bigger amount of weapons to bear.
Short answer, play any Infantry Simulation at Company/Battalion/Regimental level.
Long answer:
The higher % should account for several factors which are vital for the defender but are difficult to model at this level of abstraction. The defender will always have much higher relative % of its elements actively fighting at any one time due to the attacker running into space/terrain and range constraints.
Classic case, 3:1 odds, a Regiment in column attacking a Battalion in a linear defense. Looking only at the % of infantry squads engaged at various specific points in time, the Regiment, because it is attacking with a frontage of roughly 1 Battalion, will only be using at most, a bit more than 1 Battalions worth of infantry at the same time, the rest is out of range, masked by terrain, moving to contact etc.. So, effectivly, it's 100% vs. 33-40%.
Next come direct fire weapons with range to 1000m, HMG's and AT Guns, here the differences are smaller, some of the defenders weapons won't be in the right place, with the right fire zones. However the defenders elements are disproportionately effective and less vulnerable because they could presight their weapons, choose masked positions, coordinate firezones etc.. The attackers equivalent weapons are active but some are either out of range (parent unit not actively engaged, or no longer in a useful position), masked or moving to new positions. So depending on terrain, maybe 75% vs. 50%-60%, but accounting for the greater effectiveness of the defender, bump their share up to 100%
Next comes indirect fire weapons, mortars and Inf guns. Here, pretty much everything on both sides can fire in the beginning, though the attacker gets penalized for the fact, that again a certain % of it's units will be out of position and/or moving forward further into the battle. The defender could also be out of position, but are still likely to have targets in range and they get a bump to account for preregistering, prepared positions etc. Say 100% vs. 80%.
The above %'s are terrain dependant and don't make sense at very low force/space ratios, or when ants are involved because then the attacker actually has the space to deploy the extra combat power at this hex scale which should result in some kind of overrun result (at least with deliberate attacks).
It's also conceivable for a Corps to attack a Division on the equivalent of a Regimental frontage (Soviets late war), which would mess up the ratios a bit as well, but either way something like the above would IMO make more sense than the current system.
RE: Missing Weapons
ORIGINAL: MechFO
ORIGINAL: randallw
ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
As far as I can tell, SMGs are "Maybe" a problem and not yet confirmed as definite. I felt that 14.5mm anti-tank rifles was "maybe" a problem when I saw them knock out 40+ panzer IVs. It took 9 months for that to be confirmed and fixed.
The problem with late war combat calculations, is that the numbers involved are massive: in the case above 4,500 14.5mm anti- tank rifles had the chance to shoot at PZIVs, so the chances of throwing "double 6" 3 times in a row to achieve the hit/penetration and damage parameters were enough to kill 40+ panzer IVs. (I am simplifying here - there is much much more involved in the calculations)
Patience, young Padawan.
This sounds like the unit-density question that I sometimes think of but isn't talked about much.
Games are designed with the idea that any piece of equipment in a battle could reach any piece of the other side, but what if the unit density of one side is not that much? For your example are all those 4500 AT rifles in a position where a PZ IV may wander over close for a shot to happen?
That is, couldn't those Pz's be on a narrow frontage, leaving a few miles without no Pz's attacking?
Not a unit density question but another element that's AFAIK not accounted for in the combat model.
Only a certain percentage of weapons/units should be able to fire. Even when a Corps attacks a Division, only a portion of the close range elements are fighting each other at any one time.
The percentage able to fire should be inversely proportional to range, so the lower the range, the fewer shots (adjusted for ROF) it can make. The defender would get a bonus, since it can normally bring a much bigger % of it's weapons to bear, and SP elements should also enjoy a bonus to account for their mobility and ability to redeploy several times. TOAW IMO modelled this quite well.
This should work out to all the Artillery being able to fire, a sizable % of the mortars und Inf guns, etc, descending to the mighty SMG. This would give Artillery it's proper due while also giving some help to the defender.
As it works now, Artillery fires a bit, mortars making a killing because they can fire in more than on range band and SMG dominating the close range fire fight because they are not penalised for their very short range.
Agreed. Good post.
RE: Missing Weapons
Both sides have certain advantages that are inhereent to the status they have chosen.
The defender chooses and prepares the ground.
The defender is harder to detect.
His weapons are sighted, coordinated with other weapons and the fire more accurate.
He has the advantage of internal lines of communication and supply
He can use barriers to channel an attacking force.
Economy of force allows him use a small force to hold a larger area than the attacker.
The attacker has mass on his side.
The attacker has the initiative.
The attacker chooses the time and place of the attack. (Surprse)
The attacker has greater firepower. It may not be as accurate but the fire is greater.
The attacker has speed on his side.
All of this can be debated but wars are won by offensive action. A platoon may cover 400 meters in the defense but its attack frontage may only be 50 meters or less. The attacking platoon may spend quite a bit of time identifying the defending posions and crew served weapons. The attacker will then let others (mortars, infantry guns, artillery and air) e;iminate or suppress the positions while they move close enough to use their weapons to effect. Once a hole is created rolling up the flanks and goimg for deeper softer stuff is easier.
Does th game simulate all of this? I think it tries to but it is limited by abstractions and human preference on what they think is important. It works until someone does it better.
The defender chooses and prepares the ground.
The defender is harder to detect.
His weapons are sighted, coordinated with other weapons and the fire more accurate.
He has the advantage of internal lines of communication and supply
He can use barriers to channel an attacking force.
Economy of force allows him use a small force to hold a larger area than the attacker.
The attacker has mass on his side.
The attacker has the initiative.
The attacker chooses the time and place of the attack. (Surprse)
The attacker has greater firepower. It may not be as accurate but the fire is greater.
The attacker has speed on his side.
All of this can be debated but wars are won by offensive action. A platoon may cover 400 meters in the defense but its attack frontage may only be 50 meters or less. The attacking platoon may spend quite a bit of time identifying the defending posions and crew served weapons. The attacker will then let others (mortars, infantry guns, artillery and air) e;iminate or suppress the positions while they move close enough to use their weapons to effect. Once a hole is created rolling up the flanks and goimg for deeper softer stuff is easier.
Does th game simulate all of this? I think it tries to but it is limited by abstractions and human preference on what they think is important. It works until someone does it better.