Engineers

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:58 pm

Originally posted by richmonder:
Well, I am interested in altering my OOBs to reflect some of the national doctrine/availability for the FT and it's proper usage. SO...

Could someone give info on what the majors did? Specifically, if all engineer squads should have them, or if engineer squads for a nation should be strictly gun-toting with the addition of small FT crews, or something else?

This is how the Germans issued FTs to Pionier troops:

Everything depends on what type of Division you're in (as with most of the German equipement).

Infanterie Division:
2 FTs per platoon. This means not enough to have one per squad.

Panzer Division:
Up to 8 FTs per platoon (halftracked). They were stuffed with these FTs and sometimes could even call for FT vehicle support. Don't ask me why and what for, but Armored Engineers had a lot of them...

Between these two extremes any number is possible, mostly depending on formation types.

john g · Post by **john g** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:03 pm

Originally posted by richmonder:
Well, I am interested in altering my OOBs to reflect some of the national doctrine/availability for the FT and it's proper usage. SO...

Could someone give info on what the majors did? Specifically, if all engineer squads should have them, or if engineer squads for a nation should be strictly gun-toting with the addition of small FT crews, or something else?

The problem people seem to have with engineers is that they are not just combat engineers, but assault engineers. They are loaded for bear, as if they are doing a Normandy landing facing seawalls and bunkers, no matter what the battle they are used in.

If you think engineers are bad, just be glad you missed the v4 Anzac jungle patrol, due to oob error it was an 18 man size 0 unit with smgs, flamethrower, grenades, that was elite recon and could infiltrate. The only thing it couldn't do was lay mines as boobytraps. My pity to anyone that had a platoon of those thrown at them.

Combat engineers try to do their jobs, like laying and removing minefields, blowing up roadblocks etc without being under fire, in that case they wouldn't bring all the extra firepower. But in an assault where they are acting as specialists to remove enemy bunkers etc under fire they would bring everything but the kitchen sink.

One oob change I have thought about a lot, is removing the German Wurf as a seperate purchase, and adding a section of them to the engineer company. Since they were an unit from the outset for the support of combat engineer attacks, only allow them to be purchased as part of an engineer unit.

Not every engineer unit would have them, but in the role of assault engineers, the Germans used them that way.
thanks, John.

richmonder · Post by **richmonder** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 6:34 pm

Ok, could someone now detail Soviet and British usage of FT's?

brianleeprice · Post by **brianleeprice** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 7:13 pm

Originally posted by john g:

One oob change I have thought about a lot, is removing the German Wurf as a seperate purchase, and adding a section of them to the engineer company. Since they were an unit from the outset for the support of combat engineer attacks, only allow them to be purchased as part of an engineer unit.

Problem is that doing that does not prevent purchasing them seperately. A player could simply purchase a company containing the desired section and then eliminate all the other formations for that company that they did not want. Alternatively, with rarity on, simply buy any of the other units desired that are in that formation first, then buy all the other units in the company except the desired section until they're out of stock and eliminate them. Either way, you can't restrict purchasing in the manner you suggest. In fact, with rarity on, your opponent can't even tell for sure that you 'gamed' the purchasing system.

There really is no need for an OOB modification to accomplish that sort of thing. Simply negotiate it with your opponent in a human vs human game. For scenario and campaign design, it is a non issue - the designer has a pretty free hand as is.

Rather than use up precious OOB slots attempting to restrict player choice, it is my firm belief that OOB slots should be used to expand player choice. There are plenty of historical formations of different types for all nations that are not currently in the OOBs. I, for one, would much rather see them added than to burn up slots attempting to prevent players from using non-historical mixes.

My 2c worth,
Brian

Antonius · Post by **Antonius** » Mon Jan 28, 2002 1:10 pm

Originally posted by Challenge:
Keep in mind, when dealing with fire, it only takes a little to do a lot. When was the last time you got a serious burn and jumped right up and started doing some heavy work?

Fire hurts REALLY bad. Pain from 2nd and 3rd degree burns over less than 10 percent of the human body will incapacitate the average person and demoralize even a John Wayne. When the guy next to you turns into a human torch what is the first thing you're going to do -- charge the enemy with the blow tourch? I don't bloody think so! I think you are more likely to find a hole to crawl in and hope you can pull it in after you before that fire hose hits you. This is not cowardess; it's survival instinct.

How many times have people said it isn't strickly the number of people killed that counts toward casualty figures, It's also the guy trying to help stop the wounded from dieing and the ones who drop their guns and run as well.

Watching a stream of fire coming toward you is a lot of incentive to be somewhere else. And if the cover in the terrain you are in catches fire, you have that much more reason. Burning is one of the most painful, serious and difficult to patch injuries possible.

Yes, maybe having one in every squad is a bit much, but edit the OOB to allow two different types of Engineer units, or add in seperate FT units like there are for the AT and MG units. But don't blame the FT itself for the damage it does; that is very realistic to how people react to fire.

No real disagreement about the damage done when a hit is scored, it is the probablility of hitting that seems far too high. On top of that just every FT shot leaves a fire in the game, making the hex a very unhospitable one. So a defending unit who was lucky enough not to get killed has little choice but to evacuate the hex.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:22 pm

Hi, MG's I hate MG's more then Flamethrowers. You have to be next to the flamethrower, I always have whole squads wiped out by MG's firing from 6 or 7 hexes alway. (well sometimes closer) I just had 2 platoons of assualt Marines (7 man squads) supported by 4 engineer squads (with FT) land on a beach only to discover a Jap 5" Naval gun bunker 1hex away. When it's not shooting it's 5" gun it fires x55 rifles!!!! On each side of it are MG bunkers that fired 7mm MG's 4 times each.
So my poor 7 guys would move or shoot and the return OP fire was 8 x MG plus a 5"shell or 55 rifles.....they all died right quick (I tried to pop smoke but where to throw it when they are right next door?)

challenge · Post by **challenge** » Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:06 pm

Ouch about the mgs; personally I've yet to lose more than three or four men to MG fire, and tha's when I move too fast for safety.

Flame throwers did ignite most cover in the area they fired into. The temperature of the fuel surpasses the ignition point of most natural thing like trees, plants, and housing materials. In addition the fuel used will lie on the surface of most non-flamible object and burn until it's used up. In the context of a game, it would burn for a considerable number of turns.

In game turns, what is the effect of a buring hex?

Redleg · Post by **Redleg** » Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:52 pm

I have lost entire squads to MG fire several times. Usually, when the MG is the property of an elite force and I am foolishly moving too fast.

A very common thing in SPWAW is not having enough time to be prudent with troop movements. The pressure of time often leads to successful assaults and ambushes that wouldn't happen if I were moving more carefully.

Burning hexes are supposed to have a negative effect units in or next to them. Can't prove that it actually does, though.

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 12:01 am

Originally posted by Redleg:
--->snip<----
Burning hexes are supposed to have a negative effect units in or next to them. Can't prove that it actually does, though.

Can't tell either, but in the first MCLV scenario I had to move three entire platoons through abt. 200-250 meters of a flaming inferno. (Woods set on fire by arty)...I kinda like leading my troops around bunkers instead of directly at them <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> Anyway, many squads - unsurpressed ones - refused to move for some turns, then got on with it, while it was other squads' turn to get 'stuck'. Can it be because of the raging fire? I can't see any other reason, as they weren't really fired at. (I lead them through that fire 'cause it was in a dead angle between two obs posts and a pillbox). The only other cause I can find is a single squad taking some heavy damage from NKVD squads, scaring the others?

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 12:19 am

Originally posted by Belisarius:

Can't tell either, but in the first MCLV scenario I had to move three entire platoons through abt. 200-250 meters of a flaming inferno. (Woods set on fire by arty)...I kinda like leading my troops around bunkers instead of directly at them <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> Anyway, many squads - unsurpressed ones - refused to move for some turns, then got on with it, while it was other squads' turn to get 'stuck'. Can it be because of the raging fire? I can't see any other reason, as they weren't really fired at. (I lead them through that fire 'cause it was in a dead angle between two obs posts and a pillbox). The only other cause I can find is a single squad taking some heavy damage from NKVD squads, scaring the others?

Staying in burning hexes does increase suppression, as for getting stuck check for wire.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 12:24 am

I like the idea of FTs being two man teams, spotting them would be hard, we know how easy it is to spot ATRs.
I see a new Engineering unit and Company formation. The engineering squad should have the FTs replaced with AT grenads in addition to the satchel charges, giving each army an early war close in AT unit (you can hunt down those Char B's with engineers)
The FTs would be placed in a two man team. The Engineering Company would consist of a command engineering squad, three platoon of three engineering squads each, a heavy weapons platoon of three MMGs and three FTs. This would allow the reassigning of the MMGs and FTs to other units as needed.
In use the FTs were assigned to units making assualts, the security for the FTs was provided by the squads the FT was assigned to.

Tactically: the small size of the FT team would allow it to sneak up to fortifications and toast them from the front, and if they are spotted they will die real quick. Just remember nobody wanted to stand near an FT team in real life because when the FT tank was hit it tended to explode.

richmonder · Post by **richmonder** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 2:28 am

Kinda interesting suggestion, pbear.

I do know a few guys are working on expanding the icon graphics to the max limit, and it would be great if they could create a FT unit, but I seem to remember that ALL infantry classes use the standard infantry icons (infantry, MG, or Inf-AT).

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:20 am

Originally posted by Antonius:
I have the feeling FTs AND SMGs are too powerfull while grenades are too weak.

Agreed. Part of the problem is that often battle takes place at 1hex. The two units could be adjacent or as far as 100m apart. Even at an average range of 50m how effective is a SMG, or FT? Even a grenade hurled 50m can't be too accurate.

Maybe if SMGs were ranged down so that they would have to be used at 0 hexes, to be mass killers. FTs and Grenades could have generous kill ratings if they had a range of 0.

Mikimoto · Post by **Mikimoto** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:23 am

Very interesting thread.

I recall some info about flamethrowers being given to German infantry squads. Were the FT exclusive of the assault engineers? or were given to other types of infantry? TIA

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:26 am

Originally posted by richmonder:
Kinda interesting suggestion, pbear.

I do know a few guys are working on expanding the icon graphics to the max limit, and it would be great if they could create a FT unit, but I seem to remember that ALL infantry classes use the standard infantry icons (infantry, MG, or Inf-AT).

The engineer picture would have to change, it shows a Flame Thrower. I'm not famaliar with how to change the icon but I would think that using the Inf-AT or Scout team Icon would work best.

I have found a major problem with the two man team (which is the class I used)idea and that is the Pioneer Units. The Pioneer platoon has four engineers, one MMG, and five HT, this adds up to ten units which is the max number of units in a formation. The foot works great. The other alternative is to reduce by one the number of engineering squads in a Pioneer Platoon.

Dogfish · Post by **Dogfish** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:27 am

Hey Richmonder:

You are correct that the game will overide any icon setting when it comes to infantry. It will use the default setting that is hard coded in the game somewhere.

I've tried a few things....
1) Creating a new unit, with one of the infantry classes but with a new icon number gets overidden

2) renaming (hiding) the default shp file and testing item 1 above... overrides and displays no icon... If this had worked it would mean copying the default icon to another number, redoing all the infantry by giving them new icon numbers, and adding any new infantry icons that you wanted.

The hardcoding was done so that you see a reflection of the number of men in a unit. And so that you see a change as the nuber goes down.
There are enough slots available to make changes that work however. It would be a matter of finding where the icon numbers are hard coded in the exe file. I'll put this on my to do list, but don't know when I'll get to it. Perhaps someone at Matrix could pass on some info...?

I did make a single man icon of a swimmer holding a satchel charge out in front... looked good swimming or crawling up a beach... the forerunners of the UDT if you will... they were named a variety of things for different beach offensives during the war. Anyway, I had to change the single infantry icon in the default shp file in order to do this.

The drawback here is that any infantry squad or crew that gets reduced to one man will display the swimmer icon. I could live with it, because the reduction to one man is rare and doesn't last long, and it looked good to see one man trying to crawl away even without a weapon, than to be standing with one in firing position.

Don't think you could live with a two man FT icon when units are reduced to 2 men.

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 3:31 am

Originally posted by pbear:
I like the idea of FTs being two man teams,

Me too.

Axis FT teams were very rare at the beginning of the war, and far more common at the end.

Initially engineers were equipped with PzBuche almost exclusively. Later even elite rifle companies had FT teams. Pretty tough to capture with the current inflexible engineer squad.

Redleg · Post by **Redleg** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 4:48 am

After perhaps 25-30 different OOBs, I hope that whatever "officially" is done, gets done and I can finally play this game with the same OOBs for a while.

Most of these arguments about SMG, engineer power,
etc have been going on for a couple of years. If someone wants to make their own OOBs, that is great but I'd like to see a "final", official OOB and let it lie for a while.

I'm sure we all have a list of what we would consider to be improvements.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 4:50 am

Originally posted by Galka:

Me too.

Axis FT teams were very rare at the beginning of the war, and far more common at the end.

Initially engineers were equipped with PzBuche almost exclusively. Later even elite rifle companies had FT teams. Pretty tough to capture with the current inflexible engineer squad.

Yes but by 1943 (according to my source Almark Pub. Panzer Grenadiers) the 14th Company of a PzGrd Regiment contained an Engineering Company with 12 LMG's and Eighteen (18) Flamethrowers.

To over come the Icon problem I just classed the FT's as Light Infantry which gives a infantry icon with number of men. And there are no other Light Infantry (I can find) in the German (which is the one I am working with) OOB which also means that there is no purchase option (this is the way that you can purchase MG34 or MG42 late in the war without making a new unit).

The problem still remains with the Pioneer platoon, not enough space in the formation for 11 units. So it looks like the only solution is two different engineer squads, one with a FT and one without. And assign one of the FT engineers to each platoon.

Antonius · Post by **Antonius** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 5:04 am

Originally posted by Redleg:
After perhaps 25-30 different OOBs, I hope that whatever "officially" is done, gets done and I can finally play this game with the same OOBs for a while.

Most of these arguments about SMG, engineer power,
etc have been going on for a couple of years. If someone wants to make their own OOBs, that is great but I'd like to see a "final", official OOB and let it lie for a while.

I'm sure we all have a list of what we would consider to be improvements.

Very much agreed Redleg.
I don't use modified Oobs as I want to have a standard OOBb for all games and easy to start PBEM ones. That's one of the reason you never saw me taking part in such debates before.
How does one get the community to agree on a list ?