Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

I have been hiding in the shadows for a long time. Enjoy the game and the support. I finally decided to come out of the closet (not that one) and post.

?1. The 1941 German rifle platoon had 4 X ten man squads. The Headquarters had a 5cm Grenade thrower with a team of three men. WITE does a good job of accounting for the previous weapons and troops. So where is the platoon headquarters element of six men armed with a SMG and five rifles (one w/a scope) ?

?2. The 1941 German infantry divionsion had around 527 (+/-) LMGs but WITE only shows 387 (+/-) LMG. Where did the others go?

?3. I assume support squads represent cooks, signal, supply, headquaters, mechanics, medical and what we used to call REAMF's. If that is true why are they unarmed? Even a REAMF should be able to defend themself.

1. The 50mm mortars are represented if that is what you are referring to.

2. Missing MGs are in headquarters and other non-combat elements lumped into Support.

3. Support is equal to the total manpower of a unit minus the manpower comprising the combat elements represented in the unit.

Support units are "unarmed" because fighting is not their primary function. To arm them even with just pistols would drastically overstate their combat potential.


Jim W.

jaw;

Would you consider the Regimental Anti-tank company's and the Divisional Anti-tank battalion a combat or support element? Every Anti-tank gun platoon had a light machine gun. The decision was made to include only the individual gun teams in the Infantry Division OOB. Those 36 LMG's Teams are a combat multiplier. They are not in the rear area.

Is an Infantry Patoon Headqurters the same as a Signal Platoon Headquarters? The game seems treats them the same. The 5cm Grenade throwers are provided but the six man Headquaters is playing cards in the rear. The additional 81 SMG's, 81 scoped rifles and 324 rifles are a combat multiplier. (I would personally prefer them to the 5cm Grenade thrower teams.)

BigAnorak stated this was debated among the deision makers. A decision was made. It is not going to be changed.

If you really believe those extra weapons would matter, then modify the TOE and test it yourself. Just increase rifle squads by 36 and reduce support by 18. Experimentation is why the game comes with an editor.

jaw;

I already have. Step one was using the 5cm grenade thrower element as a base and adding the rifle headquaters element. Step two was using the machine gun element as a base and creating a new LMG element of two 7.92mm LMG+ 2 Rfl. I created 18 of them to cover the ones found in the Anti-tank platoons. The othe LMG's would not be found on the forward edge of the battle area. Step Three I adjusted support element levels so there was no change in the manpower of the Division. The result was an increase of 1 supply point, 7 ammunition pointsand a 4% increase in the overall support of the Modified Division. Step four the unit morale was compared between the unmodified and modified divisions from 75 to 90 and it changed for the better in the modified about once every four increases. Both Divisions used a base of 100% for its TO&E and supply, fuel, ammo and vehicle level.

Note: Witout making similiar changes in a Soviet Rifle Division this is of little use. My data on the Soviets is to vague and incomplete.

Note: With the Axis minors I am having beeter luck.

Do the extra weapons matter? From a gaming perscpective; no.

Again I am not saying the designers are wrong. I having a feeling the black box of a combat engine takes all of this into account. The designers made a decision and I have no issue with that.

I am simply bothered that 10880 out of my 17000 men in every Infantry division are unarmed.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41 ... nf-co.html

Wuffer;

Thank you. A very helpful link.

Maybe I misunderstood you tentpeg, but you can do just as you like very easily. You only have to modify the division, say infantry, once in the generic screen. Then go down the scenario OOB and you can update each division with a single click. It gets tedious for each type of division, Pz, Mot, Mtn, Light, etc, etc. And then again for each nationality. For me the force multiplier I was after was officers and NCO's. But I did it, half blind and wholly stupid.

Richrd;

I understand the mechanics of creating/modifying the ground elements and placing them into each OOB of the type of Division I wish to alter. Being careful with manpower ceilings, ground device updates and retirement is enough to drive one to drink. Is it tedious... yes. Will it make a difference... I do not know. My limited testing shows it benefits the Soviets more than the Germans and the Minors more than the Soviets.

What I did discover and Helpless pointed it out is arming 'support" type ground elements is a drain on resources with no return in combat value.

I also did a little experiment with officers and NCOs be pulled out of the support pool and being placed in the Division as "HQ" element troops. All I am going to say is Troops classified as a Headquarters elements have some strange characteristics.

I agree the editor is a great tool. I disagree that you are stupid. I suspect you are just humble.

BTW what do you think of the idea of isolated units being able to consume their virtual horses as a source of supply? [8|]

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

Do the extra weapons matter? From a gaming perscpective; no.

I’m not tracking on this bit.

I keep reading from ComradeP how – within the current combat resolution model -- Russian SMG combat elements tear stuff up. I assumed this meant that automatic weapons in general are uber potent within the current combat model. But it sounds like from what you are saying the addition of a bunch more MG34s and/or MG42s combat elements doesn’t really do much for the combat power of a German Infantry Division.

SMGs tear up at 50metre range. The LMGs and MGs should tear up at the 100m -300m range but this is not being reflected in the combat routines atm.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

SMGs tear up at 50metre range. The LMGs and MGs should tear up at the 100m -300m range but this is not being reflected in the combat routines atm.

ah so...thanks. Interesting observation regarding in-game weapon system effectiveness vs. actual weapon system effectiveness.

Sort of related but also unrelated to the intent of the thread (sorry not trying to derail but rather to enhance my understanding of the in-game combat model and what’s doing what to whom), I'm curious if folks have tested the relative effectiveness of in-game weapon systems and their performance vs. typical operational studies coming out of WWII. By that I mean Operational Studies that delve into relative weapon system effectiveness in terms of ability to produce casualties. Moreover: Does the current in-game combat model reflect typical casualty ratios from High Explosive vs. Small Arms? Are we seeing a realistic ratio of casualty ratios from artillery and mortars vs. say casualties produced from small arms -- Rifles\MGs\SMGs etc.?

BigAnorak;

Will it be reflected in a future combat routine (a patch) and how does the combat routine actually work now? Please sir, I would really like to know.

I wish that the logistics were managed by the player, right down to the last pumpernickel. I also wish that German manpower was managed by the player. But I don't see it. I made officers and NCOs devices, each with a small anti soft, anti hard combat value. The Germans start heavily laden, but a replacement rate that compels their numbers to dwindle. The Red Army starts with few but gradually they increase. I forget the source, maybe Charles Sharp, but in 43 the Soviets had huge numbers of officer and NCO candidates in schools. Only some will pan out. I think eating your horses will keep you alive but not fighting. Maybe somehow you set it up so that if you eat a few of your horses and you leave the hex you leave some of your heavy weapons behind. Is that what you wish the editor to do? What about foraging? Shouldn't you be able to do that too? Maybe eat the civilian horses first.

I guess then you have to increase the number of partisans generated in the hex to avenge comrade horse. I wish all this stuff was in an east front game.

Richrd;

You have a dry sense of humor. I appreciate you taking the "eat the horses" concept and running with it. Hopefully no one will take it serious and demand an option button or claim it would be a gamebreaker.

As you know, through the editor we can do what we want with manpower pool and manpower factories (offmap). Both sides historically had manpower issues. The Soviet manpower crisis may be lessened by conserving forces through ignoring Stalin's ghost "screaming attack... attack". The same can be said of the German. No player is going to hold a hex based on its name (unless that name is Berlin).

We also can adjust the size of the support element or create unique ones to "fit" a type of Divisions. (Tell it true, designers, why is the support element for a SS PzG Division the same in size and quality as a Volksgrenadier Division? Why is a Axis support element rated the same as a Soviet in size and quality?)

I like your concept of a device that identifies the chain of command. What was the a cost benefit(s)? Did it improve CV?

Something I did was make unique SS Infantry elements that have an accuracy of 1 vs. 0. I am testing to see if it has an actual battle effect.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

SMGs tear up at 50metre range. The LMGs and MGs should tear up at the 100m -300m range but this is not being reflected in the combat routines atm.

The way SMG's are so over rated by the game engine and more then over rated in clear terrain vs longer ranged rifles I would LOVE to see wite stick to the historical values as far as SMG go for German units.

This would increase Russian losses.

My guess is we will never see that.

Also germans have no armament issue at all post 1,05. I had almost 600,000 saved vs Kamil.

Will it be reflected in a future combat routine (a patch) and how does the combat routine actually work now? Please sir, I would really like to know.

As far as I know, it is on the "being looked at" list. As a non-programmer, I see major difficulties in representing in serial, something that is done in parallel. The combat calculations are done in a certain order, and that order can have impact on the next calculation etc. etc.

If you have the patience to look at the level 9 combat results you will see that MG fire does not have much opportunity to disrupt the thousands of SMG squads before the 50m calculations start; or the MGs are disrupted because the hundreds of 120mm mortar rounds have forced them to keep their heads down; or the sturmoviks have knocked out the artillery that could have disrupted the 120mm mortars etc. etc.

edit: Interestingly enough, if you used the infamous "+1" combat routines, the german MGs would get an extra chance to disrupt the SMGs but certain vocal players wanted this to be removed, and player power won the day.

Fortunately Pavel has a great analysis tool to look for these quirks, what he does not have is the time to see whether the quirks that favour the SU are balanced by the quirks that favour the Axis.

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)

Would fixing the so-called "SMG problem" make a game-changing difference? It would probably make as much difference as the current rules that convert unarmed support squads to armed rifle squads (just to keep the thread on topic!!) - i.e. nobody notices that it happens and nobody claims that they held/lost Berlin because it happens.

Patience, young Padawan.

The way SMG's are so over rated by the game engine and more then over rated in clear terrain vs longer ranged rifles I would LOVE to see wite stick to the historical values as far as SMG go for German units.

I you really understood the game engine you would realise that the casualties caused from weapon v weapon calculations represent about 1/3 of the losses seen in the game; 2/3s come from attrition and the losses that are calculated when retreats and routs are triggered. SMGs cause a tiny percentage of weapon v weapon losses. Pavel could probably calculate them for you if he had the time.

So what if Soviet SMGSs kill a few less and Axis rifles a few more - they will never account for or explain the OOB differentials that we are seeing in late war AARs.

If you are going to get on yet another bandwagon, get on one that is going to make a real difference to the game.

This would increase Russian losses.

Keeping +1 would increase Russian Losses.

BigAnorak;

Thank you for again providing insight on what the man behind the screen is doing. My own limited testing on using the +1 Accuracy in the creation of elite gound elements (paras and SS) produced interesting results.

On the SMG topic I have not explored that path enough to to form or express an opinion.

The ripple effect of sequenced fire is a bad system but it is better than all the others. I wish I could tell you about some of the nonsense the military and civilian contractors used to analyze and jusitfy weapons procurement and force structure. I was amazed at what people would do to justify the next silver bullet or gold plated AT gun.