Japan infantry squad organization

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, squad anti-soft firepower is calculated from every infantry weapon included at company level. Individual ‘effectiveness’ values were given to each class of weapon: bolt-action rifle, self-loading rifle, automatic rifle, magazine fed LMG, belt fed LMG, magazine fed MMG, belt fed MMG, 50mm GD, 2” mortar, 60mm mortar, etc. Everything was incorporated into a squad, except for MMGs (.30 cal ‘heavys’) and HMGs (.50 cal ‘heavys’), which were incorporated into 2-gun MG Section ‘squads’.

The number of weapons in a platoon (or company) element were totaled and multiplied by their respective ‘effectiveness’ value. Done exactly the same way for every single nation, using exactly the same ‘effectiveness’ values for every single weapon class. These totals were then normalized in order to bring infantry anti soft firepower in line with the anti soft firepower of the basis artillery piece, so that inf/arty firepower is a unified and, rationally related, whole (i.e., infantry values like 21733 and 19147, became 22 and 19, respectively).

As Rob Carpenter mentions, the majority of squad firepower is derived from the support weapons (MGs and mortars), so dinking with a rifle or a hand grenade is a fruitless exercise. As Andy mentions, all of these things were done to all nations as a whole. If one is changed, all others must be changed as well. One must also make allowances for exactly how individual squad sizes (i.e., troop count as expressed by load cost) were determined in order to properly allocate the appropriate proportion of platoon/company firepower to each squad.

Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

If a person were crazy enough, could you convert the system to platoons? I know it might screw up the Assault Strength calculations but perhaps not. I mean isn't 300 to 300 the same ratio as 30 to 30? Just thinking out loud really

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
If you substitute "make it more favorable to playing Japan" for "make it more realistic", you will find the motivation for most of these demands. When will the JFB's realize that Japan is not Germany? It's Italy, with suicidal bravery substituted for spagetti! But the quality of it's weaponry still generally sucks.

This thread was doing fine without a dose of your typical acrebic JFB's are everywhere type commentary.

Interesting comment..., as in your next post you basically turn around and agree with me...

I can't imagine that even a modest change in one or more rifle device values would even show much in the final results given all the die rolls and everything. The overall package seems to represent the differences in firepower well. I recall some tests i did back in the day having a full strength IJA div attack an unentrenched US army RCT in a jungle hex and then a US div vs. a Japanese regiment, same sit. The difference in casualties produced was marked.

Which was my point exactly! The original poster's attempts to "mutate" the values of Japanese Weaponry were simply "wishful thinking" based on a desire to make Japanese units more effective..., with no thought to how the relationships between the values of all the competing nations would also have to be juggled. [;)]

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

If a person were crazy enough, could you convert the system to platoons? I know it might screw up the Assault Strength calculations but perhaps not. I mean isn't 300 to 300 the same ratio as 30 to 30? Just thinking out loud really

Things like transport (especially air and barge), supply usage, etc would need to be dealt with. I agree with you that land units might have been easier/better? to work with/look at, if they were smaller in device totals. I wonder how the small units would be affected. Instead of 30 squads in a raider unit, there would be 6 platoons? or 2 companies? I bet the life expectancy in a good sized stack would be pretty low. Small units tend to die quick, even with large relative device totals.

Nice thought, but this isn't something that will get looked at, even in the next couple of years.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: herwin
The US Army figured having the M1 meant that they could get by with the BAR instead of a real LMG, but it didn't really work out that well.

The BAR is still the main squad support weapon during the Korean War.

It was still the main squad support weapon in some units in 1964. The M14 was coming into use. Replacing individual and squad equipment in an army is a slow process. Don't even talk about changing ammo.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.

From a post of mine two years ago:

'Wayne Hughes writes:

'"During the 1960s, defense systems analysts suffered a foretaste of the ways complex simulations inhibit imagination and creativity when they tried to solve problems by exploiting the brute-force capacity of the computer by adding more and more inputs and making more and more runs. They learned that too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating."

'There are two problems here. First, too complex a model will surpass the comprehension of the users. Secondly, too good a model will teach the users to lean on the model too much, so that when it fails, they have no foundation on which to construct their own solutions. You've seen that with stock WitP. It came to be seen as the oracle that described how the war in the Pacific was fought. Then some people with a knowledge of reality began poking holes in it, and it was too complex to resist the hole-poking.'

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.

My original post was in respnse to JWE's explanation that the hard and soft attack strengths of the squad were not calculated by looking at the weapons in the squad but instead looking at the total weapons in the platoon (and sometimes company) and then dividing that value by the number of squads. This allowed the designers/mods to incorporate the heavy support weapons found at the platoon and company level into the firepower of the squad. My point was simply why not make the base unit the platoon in the first place to avoid those calculations

I 100% agree on your second point that the combat system as it is probably cannot handle such a change. In that point Harry is probably correct in that the original complexity built into the system prohibits any large scale revision.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

In what way will using platoon or company save work?

The destruction or disruption of a single company has a more severe impact than a single squad. With squads, at least you have a veriety of results and gradual degredation of assault value.

From a post of mine two years ago:

'Wayne Hughes writes:

'"During the 1960s, defense systems analysts suffered a foretaste of the ways complex simulations inhibit imagination and creativity when they tried to solve problems by exploiting the brute-force capacity of the computer by adding more and more inputs and making more and more runs. They learned that too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating."

'There are two problems here. First, too complex a model will surpass the comprehension of the users. Secondly, too good a model will teach the users to lean on the model too much, so that when it fails, they have no foundation on which to construct their own solutions. You've seen that with stock WitP. It came to be seen as the oracle that described how the war in the Pacific was fought. Then some people with a knowledge of reality began poking holes in it, and it was too complex to resist the hole-poking.'

Harry, do you realize that in that you have just undermined the bulk of the arguments you have made of late? Regardless of the validity of the technical aspects of your arguments, the system cannot handle or be modified in a way to implement the changes you see necessary.

BTW, that last sentence does not say what I think you wanted it to imply. I think you meant that the system is so complex that it resists the hole-poking. Or maybe I am wrong and you meant what you wrote

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Interesting comment..., as in your next post you basically turn around and agree with me...

Inquisitor did some research and posted thoughts that he felt certain Japanese values were underrated and asked for commentary. Your commentary about his motivations being "typical JFB fantasies" was degrading and not backed up by anything concrete, thus polluting an otherwise useful and mature discussion. Nice job Scholl.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: vettim89


Sorry for hijacking the thread here but this brings up a point I have always wondered about. Why was the basic unit of infantry for a strategic game that covers over half the Earth a 10-15 man squad? I realize that it is the nature of the beast at this point but it just feels wrong to me. I know many would not share my opinion but it seems to me making the platoon or even company the basic unit would have saved a lot of work

If a person were crazy enough, could you convert the system to platoons? I know it might screw up the Assault Strength calculations but perhaps not. I mean isn't 300 to 300 the same ratio as 30 to 30? Just thinking out loud really

I think it's mostly a carryover from past engines that Gary Grigsby designed....they also used "squads" In hindsight, a wargame that simulates such a vast conflict at the operational level would probably be better off represented with more generalistic and abstract combat ratings but Grigsby games have always been highlighted by the "tactical" feel and representation that they give.......starting way back in the 8-bit days. I recall the advertising on the back of the first "War in Russia" game.....combat resolved down to every plane, every tank.....and every squad.

Be that as it may....in the end the combat formulas and die rolls still play a prominant part in the overall results, hence original WitP programmer Mike Wood's comment to me years ago about the beauty of Grigsby based systems being that they give the player "The illusion of choice" That meaning that players can manipulate just about every device in the game, with each device having a half dozen changable values but in the end, whether weapon A has a soft value of 2 or 4, the ultimate result is not going to be substantially changed. Further, as related in this thead.....simply changing value A and B will not necessarily lead to C.

[Shark7]

I have a feeling that if one wanted to 100% accurately represent the true strength of each unit in game, one would need to model each rifleman, mortar, and machine gun individually. While certainly doable, it becomes a question of 'Is it worth it?'

So how many rifleman do you want to track, given the standard division was about 20k men?

Just saying. [;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Harry, do you realize that in that you have just undermined the bulk of the arguments you have made of late? Regardless of the validity of the technical aspects of your arguments, the system cannot handle or be modified in a way to implement the changes you see necessary.

BTW, that last sentence does not say what I think you wanted it to imply. I think you meant that the system is so complex that it resists the hole-poking. Or maybe I am wrong and you meant what you wrote

'Then some people with a knowledge of reality began poking holes in it, and it was too complex to resist the hole-poking.'

Complex systems become unpredictable and respond to stick-prodding with unexpected and often undesired behaviour.

Example: the UK Government decided last year to increase the VAT rate to bring in more tax money. What happened is that it seems to have discouraged UK consumers from buying and quite likely will reduce tax revenues.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Harry, do you realize that in that you have just undermined the bulk of the arguments you have made of late? Regardless of the validity of the technical aspects of your arguments, the system cannot handle or be modified in a way to implement the changes you see necessary.

BTW, that last sentence does not say what I think you wanted it to imply. I think you meant that the system is so complex that it resists the hole-poking. Or maybe I am wrong and you meant what you wrote

'Then some people with a knowledge of reality began poking holes in it, and it was too complex to resist the hole-poking.'

Complex systems become unpredictable and respond to stick-prodding with unexpected and often undesired behaviour.

Example: the UK Government decided last year to increase the VAT rate to bring in more tax money. What happened is that it seems to have discouraged UK consumers from buying and quite likely will reduce tax revenues.

The Laffer Curve. Simply put, the higher the tax rate, the less the tax revenue...people will stop spending (in the case of a sales or VAT tax) or try to hide the income/assets (in the case of an income/property tax).

In a similar matter with this...the more complex you make a system, it seems the more tempting it is to try and break it. [:)]

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I have a feeling that if one wanted to 100% accurately represent the true strength of each unit in game, one would need to model each rifleman, mortar, and machine gun individually. While certainly doable, it becomes a question of 'Is it worth it?'

So how many rifleman do you want to track, given the standard division was about 20k men?

Just saying. [;)]

When WITP II comes out I expect each rifleman to be named and have at least as many skill stats as each pilot does currently.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I have a feeling that if one wanted to 100% accurately represent the true strength of each unit in game, one would need to model each rifleman, mortar, and machine gun individually. While certainly doable, it becomes a question of 'Is it worth it?'

So how many rifleman do you want to track, given the standard division was about 20k men?

Just saying. [;)]

When WITP II comes out I expect each rifleman to be named and have at least as many skill stats as each pilot does currently.

And every weapon's stats validated at the proving ground?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

When WITP II comes out I expect each rifleman to be named and have at least as many skill stats as each pilot does currently.

and you'll have to manage their training....

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Yakface

When WITP II comes out I expect each rifleman to be named and have at least as many skill stats as each pilot does currently.

and you'll have to manage their training....

And if that is the case, I guarantee I will not be buying it. Just say NO! to micromanagement. [;)]

[Schanilec]

To funny boys.[:D][:D][:D]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I have a feeling that if one wanted to 100% accurately represent the true strength of each unit in game, one would need to model each rifleman, mortar, and machine gun individually. While certainly doable, it becomes a question of 'Is it worth it?'

And that is exactly what we did, all the way down to pistols and K-bars.

Inquistor is just trying to impress a "Squad Leader" numeric on a single aspect of a theater level game. No way it will ever be done.

[Brady]

I have the hard coppy of Handbook on Japanese Military Forces TM-E 3-480 ( http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/HB/index.html ) Note Link, its available on line for free.
 
 While a good place to start it is not 100% reliable.
 
Page 34'ish has some info concerning the subject at hand, and while I am not shure how the "Team" arived at the relative values, it should be noted that Japanese squad size inso much as I understand it was.... Larger than what one might think, at 15 to 20 men per squad, the later if we asume three squads per platoon for a, Type A Rifle Companys, Rifle Platoon.
 
62 men 3 LMG's and 4 Kneee mortars (GD) 
 
The referance howeaver breaks this down as 4 sections of 15 men and 3 LMG sections and one GD section.
 
 So one squad has 14 Rifles and One LMG or a GD or two...(GD troopers carried rifles as well.)