Why the small inf teams ?

Based on Atomic Games’ award-winning Close Combat series, Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein brings together the classic top-down tactical gameplay from the original series and plenty of new features, expansions, and improvements! The Wacht am Rhein remake comes with a brand new Grand Campaign including a new strategic map with 64 gorgeous hand-drawn tactical maps, over 70 scenarios, tons of new interface and unit graphics, countless engine improvements, and much more!
User avatar
final_drive
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Belgium

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by final_drive »

Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.

Squadleader,

Nice copy-paste from Gary J. Kennedy's site on WWII batallion organisation. Next time provide a link, so others can enjoy as well:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm
Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...

Sorry Drogon, in late '44 Volksgrenadier units had absolute priority on MP44/StG44 deliveries. With the establishment of the Sturmzug, their tactical doctrine on the platoon level was completely developed around this weapon. (SS-)Pz.Gren. for the time being largely stuck to their doctrine of two le.MG per Gruppe, with companies within only some units having a single (small) Sturmzug next to two Schützen-Züge. That is when enough of the new weapons and ammo for it, were around within that unit.
George: "Sir, if we should happen to tread on a mine, what do we do?"
Blackadder: "Well, normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area."
User avatar
squadleader_id
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:31 am
Contact:

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by squadleader_id »

ORIGINAL: final_drive
Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.

Squadleader,

Nice copy-paste from Gary J. Kennedy's site on WWII batallion organisation. Next time provide a link, so others can enjoy as well:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm

Sorry...I thought that the bayonetstrength site was already common knowledge to all tactical wargamers [:D]
Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...
Sorry Drogon, in late '44 Volksgrenadier units had absolute priority on MP44/StG44 deliveries. With the establishment of the Sturmzug, their tactical doctrine on the platoon level was completely developed around this weapon. (SS-)Pz.Gren. for the time being largely stuck to their doctrine of two le.MG per Gruppe, with companies within only some units having a single (small) Sturmzug next to two Schützen-Züge. That is when enough of the new weapons and ammo for it, were around within that unit.

Interesting...
Have you played TT's CC4: VetBoB (or Firefox's new CCWAR VetBoB)?
VG units are using a lot of StG44s in VetBoB...unlike in stock CC4 (and WAR).
User avatar
final_drive
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Belgium

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by final_drive »

Have you played TT's CC4: VetBoB (or Firefox's new CCWAR VetBoB)?
I'm in VetBoB's credits. [;)]
Those were the days...
George: "Sir, if we should happen to tread on a mine, what do we do?"
Blackadder: "Well, normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area."
User avatar
Peter Fisla
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Canada

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by Peter Fisla »

ORIGINAL: final_drive
Examples of WW2 TO&E applicable to WAR.

Squadleader,

Nice copy-paste from Gary J. Kennedy's site on WWII batallion organisation. Next time provide a link, so others can enjoy as well:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm
Standard German VG/basic team: 1 MG, 3 to 4 rifles, 2-3 MP40, some other weapons
SS or more elite teams: Less riffles and more SG44 etc...

Sorry Drogon, in late '44 Volksgrenadier units had absolute priority on MP44/StG44 deliveries. With the establishment of the Sturmzug, their tactical doctrine on the platoon level was completely developed around this weapon. (SS-)Pz.Gren. for the time being largely stuck to their doctrine of two le.MG per Gruppe, with companies within only some units having a single (small) Sturmzug next to two Schützen-Züge. That is when enough of the new weapons and ammo for it, were around within that unit.


Wow, I didn't know about this site, nice find! Thanks final_drive!
User avatar
squadleader_id
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:31 am
Contact:

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by squadleader_id »

ORIGINAL: final_drive
Have you played TT's CC4: VetBoB (or Firefox's new CCWAR VetBoB)?
I'm in VetBoB's credits. [;)]
Those were the days...

Ahh...so I guess that explains the VG squads design and abundance of VG StG44 in VetBoB [;)]
drogon
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:21 am

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by drogon »

I did not say that my squads were historically accurate (I partly contributed to the Sturmgewehr 44 article in wiki so I know my squads are not correct).

I mod my squads so to have a quite balanced game against the AI.

Cheers
User avatar
final_drive
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Belgium

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by final_drive »

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

Ahh...so I guess that explains the VG squads design and abundance of VG StG44 in VetBoB [;)]

The 'problem' (if we care to use that heavy word in the context of what remains a very fine game) of the requisition screen in CC5, and now in CC:WaR, is the freedom it allows the player in composing his 15-unit battlegroup prior to battle.

At least it is an issue if you care for drawing up teams (squads) as historically accurately possible within the game engine's limits, while also caring about having an accurate unit structure one or two levels up in the chain of command: platoon and company.

CC4 did not allow any freedom in requisition, which wasn't liked by players:
- in stock (unmodded) campaign games it didn't bring enough variation for the player, having to play with the same mix of 15 units per battlegroup time and again.
- it made games predictable as the player could not surprise his opponent by a tactical choice of unit types, fit for the given tactical situation or terrain.
Yet, a fixed battlegroup screen was liked by a minority of players, because to them it appeared realistic to fight with the units you get, just like a company commander fights with his units and whatever he gets in support from higher command echelons (this of course, again within the game's UI limit of having only 15 units per battlegroup). Modding in for example the typical doctrinal fixed tactical structure of a Volksgrenadier-platoon was possible with CC4.

CC5 in a reaction to complaints brought freedom in requisition, but this had the disadvantage that any combination in the battlegroup lay-out became possible, as far as allowed by the units in the forcepool: e.g. as many mortar teams, tanks, etc. as the forcepool contained. Especially in single battles this could make for unbalanced battles.

Now CC:WaR at campaign set-up allows the choice between CC5-type open requisition, or CC4-type fixed battlegroups, which is a nice feature. The showing of the requisition points further assists in balancing single battles, though it still remains a matter of agreement between players.

In reality, squads operate(d) within platoon TO/E structures, together with dedicated platoon (or company) support weapons. Full freedom in CC's requisition screen, allows a player to disregard this historical aspect.

So the effort made by developers / modders in e.g. having Pz.Gren. teams of four/five men, each with their le.MG, which are clearly meant to represent doctrinal fire teams (Halbgruppen - 6 making for one full-strength platoon), is lost, if the player is not somehow forced to go with the platoon structure and is able to adapt his battegroup to his likenings. Likewise, the effort of having the correct number of .30cal MMGs available in the forcepool when compared to the number of rifle squads in that forcepool, is lost, if a player before battle can fill up his complete active roster with up to 15 .30cals. These are just two examples of the consequences of this 'requisition freedom'.

Anyway, a way too long post to explain what many long-time players know, but don't really care for as the game's still fun enough. [:)]
Still, I have no idea if technically possible, but it would be great if a mixed locked / unlocked requisition screen could be considered for a future patch: imagine having the composition of two first platoons 'locked' (mainly infantry platoon structure) and leaving the lay-out of the third (support) platoon to the choice of the player: enough historical "you fight-with-what-you-get", in combination with some freedom in selecting support units / weapons / armour to keep variation and tactical surprise.
George: "Sir, if we should happen to tread on a mine, what do we do?"
Blackadder: "Well, normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area."
Tejszd
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:32 pm

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by Tejszd »

Its on my personal wish list to be able to turn on or off a realistic force mix. In CC2 the player could select any squads/vehicles they wanted as long as the points were available (it used a point system for buying units) and you still had spots available for that type of unit (it capped by type of unit the number you could have). Thus the unrealistic mixes you describe were tended to not be possible....
User avatar
final_drive
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: Belgium

RE: Why the small inf teams ?

Post by final_drive »

Tesjzd,
Yes, of all CCs, CC2 had the best solution for that matter.
George: "Sir, if we should happen to tread on a mine, what do we do?"
Blackadder: "Well, normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area."
Post Reply

Return to “Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein”