I was thinking of changing some stats

[the_iron_duke]

I'm working on a Combat Engineer graphic. [:)]

[the_iron_duke]

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.

[the_iron_duke]

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.

[Ormand]

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.

[the_iron_duke]

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!

[Ormand]

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.

[the_iron_duke]

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.