Rifle Squad Differences?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Maybe. However I recoil from Curtis' approach for two reasons.

The first is admittedly irrational. I prefer that 36 rifle-squad battalions have 36 rifle squads.

It's subjective. Which is more important: Getting the number of squads right, or getting the number of rifles & MGs right? I prefer the latter.

If I did anything, I'd probably modify the values for the squad rather than add more squads. As I noted earlier, I routinely modify values for each scenario I design, so there's no problem there.

Well, there is the issue of "fine control" that I posted about earlier. There are a limited number of integers available for squad values. Can you accurately distinguish between that 8-man squad with 2 LMGs vs. that 13-man squad with 1 LMG? You can with a mix of squads.

The second reason is somewhat easier to defend. I think that Norm's density values err on the side of being too restrictive. One will be severely penalized if one jams in as many troops into a given area as historically often were jammed in.

Sorry, but your way gets the density wrong. In your version, both 36-squad units will have the same density, despite one having 8-man squads and the other having 13-man squads. My way gets the density right. Now, you can complain about the density penalty all you want, but that's not a defensible solution.

Note: It also gets the lift requirements right, too.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The second reason is somewhat easier to defend. I think that Norm's density values err on the side of being too restrictive. One will be severely penalized if one jams in as many troops into a given area as historically often were jammed in.

This really comes across in Bo- Curtis' France 1944 scenario. When I tried that, it was virtually impossible to avoid density penalties. See, every unit had about twice as many active defenders as I would have expected.

So, "France 1944" is one of the few scenarios out there that gets the density at Normandy right. Most other versions make you think you're on the eastern front.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


...Bo- Curtis'...

Bokurt? CurtCross? That last is a little less mystifying.

Anyone for Delicious Ben?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, "France 1944" is one of the few scenarios out there that gets the density at Normandy right.

No I disagree. In that scenario, it was literally impossible to avoid density penalties without limiting yourself to one unit per hex. That's too much. At this scale, one should have say two regiments per hex as a standard, plus support troops- and more if there's an offensive going on. As it happens, the density penalties are so high that one tries to conduct offensives with as few units as possible.

Besides that, you have all those American cooks and clerks going in and getting massacred by German armour with the rest of them. They may have had rifles, but they didn't fight.

Now, take your excellent Soviet Union 1941 scenario. There your cooks and clerks sit at the back until the shit hits the fan. That's a better approach.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


...Bo- Curtis'...

Bokurt? CurtCross? That last is a little less mystifying.

Anyone for Delicious Ben?

Mm. You can refer to him that way if you wish. The rest of us will draw whatever conclusions seem most appropriate.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Anyone for Delicious Ben?

Sorry, always seems weird to use other peoples' psuedonyms, but have to be careful as some have been known to flip out if you use their real name.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Sorry, but your way gets the density wrong. In your version, both 36-squad units will have the same density, despite one having 8-man squads and the other having 13-man squads. My way gets the density right. Now, you can complain about the density penalty all you want, but that's not a defensible solution.

Logically, notta necessarily. Assuming Norm's values err on the side of forcing excessive dispersal, my approach would lead to values being randomly off within some range -- say between 10% and 30%, just to pull numbers out of the air. Your approach would lead to them being consistently off by some larger value -- say between 30% and 35%. That the error is now falling within a smaller range doesn't alter the fact that it's a larger error.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Anyone for Delicious Ben?

Sorry, always seems weird to use other peoples' psuedonyms, but have to be careful as some have been known to flip out if you use their real name.

Some who shall remain nameless. Otherwise He will flip out.

...a cold wind runs through the internet ether. Has the foolish Colin provoked the Volcano God again?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, "France 1944" is one of the few scenarios out there that gets the density at Normandy right.

No I disagree. In that scenario, it was literally impossible to avoid density penalties without limiting yourself to one unit per hex. That's too much. At this scale, one should have say two regiments per hex as a standard, plus support troops- and more if there's an offensive going on. As it happens, the density penalties are so high that one tries to conduct offensives with as few units as possible.

I haven't played Bob's scenario, but I've seen this syndrome in the work of others.

It's a real bummer. The most egregious problem is that small support units -- like assault gun battalions, etc -- can't do exactly what they historically did: stack with the big infantry units. Instead, you have to form ahistorical combined arms teams of all the random small units. 'Sorry major, we don't support infantry regiments. Just engineering companies, ski battalions -- that sort of thing.'

In general, how a scenario is designed will force/encourage certain modes of play. That's really the acid test of whether the design is good or bad. If it encourages historical behavior, it's more reasonable to label it 'good' than if the reverse keeps happening.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In general, how a scenario is designed will force/encourage certain modes of play. That's really the acid test of whether the design is good or bad. If it encourages historical behavior, it's more reasonable to label it 'good' than if the reverse keeps happening.

Yeah. Density penalties plus the low attrition divider mean that infantry is basically toast in this environment. Your best defensive units are the ones which contain as high a % as possible of armour. Forget combined arms- just a row of fortified tank battalions will be an impregnable defence.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, "France 1944" is one of the few scenarios out there that gets the density at Normandy right.

No I disagree. In that scenario, it was literally impossible to avoid density penalties without limiting yourself to one unit per hex. That's too much. At this scale, one should have say two regiments per hex as a standard, plus support troops- and more if there's an offensive going on. As it happens, the density penalties are so high that one tries to conduct offensives with as few units as possible.

Besides that, you have all those American cooks and clerks going in and getting massacred by German armour with the rest of them. They may have had rifles, but they didn't fight.

Now, take your excellent Soviet Union 1941 scenario. There your cooks and clerks sit at the back until the shit hits the fan. That's a better approach.

So, in other words, it appears you do think Normandy should have the same density as the eastern front. If so, you're mistaken. It's essential that Normandy be high density. And, I think I've got it about right, based upon the scenario's performance.

And I'm not including cooks and clerks. If I had done that, each division would have had 1800 squads in it. I am modeling more than just the immediate frontline elements, though - although you'll find that most of that is actually in rear-area units (artillery, AAA, AT, HQ, engineer, etc.).

Whether I include those elements is situation dependent. You won't find them in Cambrai, for example. It depends upon whether the fight was contained within the frontline elements or whether rear-area elements got involved, too. Normandy is the latter case. The Germans weren't pulling units out once the frontline elements had been lost. They were fighting more or less to the last man. Therefore, those men have to be modeled. And if I've modeled them in the Germans I have to model them in the Allies too, or the scenario would be unbalanced by the different standards.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the discussion about how to model squads. What parts of the unit are modeled is a different question from how to model whatever parts are included.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Sorry, but your way gets the density wrong. In your version, both 36-squad units will have the same density, despite one having 8-man squads and the other having 13-man squads. My way gets the density right. Now, you can complain about the density penalty all you want, but that's not a defensible solution.

Logically, notta necessarily. Assuming Norm's values err on the side of forcing excessive dispersal, my approach would lead to values being randomly off within some range -- say between 10% and 30%, just to pull numbers out of the air. Your approach would lead to them being consistently off by some larger value -- say between 30% and 35%. That the error is now falling within a smaller range doesn't alter the fact that it's a larger error.

What a convoluted line of reasoning - just to hopelessly try to prop up your obviously wrong position. Let me repeat: your method gives the same density to two units that differ in size by a ratio of 13:8.

Even assuming you have some actual basis for claiming Norm got the density thing wrong (highly dubious), the rational solution would be to treat squads as if they were proportionately larger formations.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


What a convoluted line of reasoning - just to hopelessly try to prop up your obviously wrong position...

Awww...It's growling!!!!

Can I scratch you behind the ears?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, in other words, it appears you do think Normandy should have the same density as the eastern front.

No, I think one should use the same design philosophy regardless of the front- as you did in your Germany 1945 scenario.

Normandy is the latter case. The Germans weren't pulling units out once the frontline elements had been lost. They were fighting more or less to the last man. Therefore, those men have to be modeled. And if I've modeled them in the Germans I have to model them in the Allies too, or the scenario would be unbalanced by the different standards.

But the rear-area elements of the Allied divisions weren't involved in the fighting. So in fact you have unbalanced the scenario by applying the same standard to different situations.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Normandy is the latter case. The Germans weren't pulling units out once the frontline elements had been lost. They were fighting more or less to the last man. Therefore, those men have to be modeled. And if I've modeled them in the Germans I have to model them in the Allies too, or the scenario would be unbalanced by the different standards.

Note that your solution is less than ideal. After all, we now have the battlin' cooks of the 51st Highland. This is not simulation.

I think I'll take this opportunity to plug one of my ideas.

If we had a total cap on the weapons in a unit, then you could have German divisions with a cap of -- say -- 500 weapons. They start with 324/324 heavy rifle squads, 176/176 all-the-other-crap, and 0/200 light rifles. They can't get any of the light rifles because they're full up. They already have 500 weapons. You could even overfill them -- set the cap at 400 or so -- so that the divisions have to take fairly heavy losses before they can start throwing in the cooks et al.

Anyway, as the division starts taking losses -- but only once it starts taking losses -- it can start filling those light rifle slots. So without having behemoth rifle division where everyone fights from the start and screw cooking dinner, you have a division that keeps filling up the light rifle slot as it weakens otherwise -- in short, behaves something like its historical original.

[L`zard]

It's all about the 'SCALE' from what I can see.......

My own view is "leave it up to the designer" and allow the tools to make it so........one shouldn't LIMIT the designer, we should have a wider scope of variables instead!

Not all scenarios will be 'WW II' based, and while ToaW might have started this way, why keep it so?

Lot's of scenarios have different parameters, eh?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, in other words, it appears you do think Normandy should have the same density as the eastern front.

No, I think one should use the same design philosophy regardless of the front- as you did in your Germany 1945 scenario.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I'm saying is that Normandy is supposed to be dense. The fact that it is so in my scenario is a good thing. Using the same standard as in France 1944, an eastern front scenario wouldn't be dense. Why would anyone expect to have that same condition in Normandy?

Normandy is the latter case. The Germans weren't pulling units out once the frontline elements had been lost. They were fighting more or less to the last man. Therefore, those men have to be modeled. And if I've modeled them in the Germans I have to model them in the Allies too, or the scenario would be unbalanced by the different standards.

But the rear-area elements of the Allied divisions weren't involved in the fighting. So in fact you have unbalanced the scenario by applying the same standard to different situations.

I'm very satisfied with the scenario's balance. And those Allied rear-area elements keep the Germans from exploiting frontline losses to launch unrealistic counterattacks - which they could if they hadn't been modeled.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Note that your solution is less than ideal. After all, we now have the battlin' cooks of the 51st Highland. This is not simulation.

Pretty close to ideal. Have you read my AAR?:

tm.asp?m=1546619

and:

tm.asp?m=1726673

(I love plugging them). [:)]

And, as I said earlier, I'm not including any cooks or clerks. Just combat elements other than the ones for the immediate frontline areas.

I think I'll take this opportunity to plug one of my ideas.

If we had a total cap on the weapons in a unit, then you could have German divisions with a cap of -- say -- 500 weapons. They start with 324/324 heavy rifle squads, 176/176 all-the-other-crap, and 0/200 light rifles. They can't get any of the light rifles because they're full up. They already have 500 weapons. You could even overfill them -- set the cap at 400 or so -- so that the divisions have to take fairly heavy losses before they can start throwing in the cooks et al.

Anyway, as the division starts taking losses -- but only once it starts taking losses -- it can start filling those light rifle slots. So without having behemoth rifle division where everyone fights from the start and screw cooking dinner, you have a division that keeps filling up the light rifle slot as it weakens otherwise -- in short, behaves something like its historical original.

But the divisions aren't receiving them as replacements. They're actually there on the ground - just in the rear. They are immediately available in the event of a breakthrough - not showing up several turns later. Perhaps that way will work, but it will be subject to the obscurities of the TOAW replacement system, so maybe not.

And, of course, no such facility was (or is) available to me when I was designing France 1944.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, in other words, it appears you do think Normandy should have the same density as the eastern front.

No, I think one should use the same design philosophy regardless of the front- as you did in your Germany 1945 scenario.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I'm saying is that Normandy is supposed to be dense. The fact that it is so in my scenario is a good thing.

There is the minor problem that as Ben noted, actually taking up positions in this density is tactically suicidal. Not only will you suffer severe losses, but you won't hold the hex either, as the decimated units will tend to evaporate or retreat out.

This leads to one of two possibilities. Either the historical Germans were complete idiots, or your scenario doesn't simulate the reality of the situation very well. That is to say, even if the troops were densely packed in, they couldn't have suffered the kind of increased losses this behavior will produce in TOAW.

Personally, my guess is that your denials notwithstanding, you're running afoul of Norm's excessively rigorous density penalties. If you do pack the troops in, you'll get hammered -- and if you've made the units larger still, the problem will be still worse.

Really, the whole issue could do with some analysis and discussion. But we won't get it. We'll stall out (once again) over the issue of whether your scenario is or is not perfection incarnate.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

[I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I'm saying is that Normandy is supposed to be dense.

If you have to add masses of extra equipment to achieve this then obviously something has gone wrong.

I'm pretty sure it would be dense regardless. In my match, I recall I had a lot of combat units piled up in the rear areas to avoid density penalties. Reduce the levels of equipment in units and these go straight into the front line hexes- and you still have a dense battle.

I'm very satisfied with the scenario's balance. And those Allied rear-area elements keep the Germans from exploiting frontline losses to launch unrealistic counterattacks - which they could if they hadn't been modeled.

Frontline losses? Hell, if the other guy takes a lot of losses you have to call off the attack. Go for those three fat infantry regiments with the density penalty instead.