This option should be a requirement, as despite the high quality of medical care (in some nations), a part of your force is always too sick to fight. Rear area duties and all that is mentioned, but the fact is, depending on the theater, a combat unit could be at 75% efficiency or less for medical reasons alone. Local diseases were rampant, everywhere..
Extreme weather conditions play a part, too, so I'd strongly recommend that the "reduced squads" option be turned ON.
For my Marine force, it's rare that a squad can be fielded at 100%. For my initial "Guadacanal" core force, malaria became an epidemic. I'm very lucky to have 8 out of 9 fit to fight.
Keep this in mind when you fight your virtual battles. Some of those guys literally dragged themselves out of their sickbeds to be there with their buddies.
"Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
Reduced Squads ON is problematic for several reasons. I only recommend playing with Reduced Squads ON when you are playing a custom designer campaign (like Long Long Road), or when playing against another human (by agreement).
I recommend Reduced Squads OFF in all other cases.
The first problem with Reduced Squads ON is that it only affects 'infantry/rifle' type squads. All other unit types are unaffected by Reduced Squads ON. Vehicles of all types are unaffected. Artillery of all types are unaffected. 'Small' units (like recon and MGs and ATR, etc.) are unaffected.
The second problem with Reduced Squads ON is that the computer almost always buys more 'infantry/rifle' type squads than the human player. This means that the computer usually suffers more from from Reduced Squads ON than the human player. Thus, the human player gains an advantage playing with Reduced Squads ON against the computer. (Note that this is not true when playing a custom designer campaign like Long Long Road, hence my advice at the start of this post.)
The third problem with Reduced Squads ON is that the computer does not know how to optimize its transport assets. The human player can and will load more than one unit onto his transport units, thus optimizing his transport assets. The computer will not do this. Thus, the human player gains another advantage playing with Reduced Squads ON against the computer. (Note that this is not true when playing a custom designer campaign like Long Long Road.)
Bottom line: Playing with Reduced Squads ON is usually an advantage for the human player against the computer. I recommend playing with Reduced Squads OFF unless you are playing a custom designer campaign (like Long Long Road) or when playing against another human (by agreement).
I recommend Reduced Squads OFF in all other cases.
The first problem with Reduced Squads ON is that it only affects 'infantry/rifle' type squads. All other unit types are unaffected by Reduced Squads ON. Vehicles of all types are unaffected. Artillery of all types are unaffected. 'Small' units (like recon and MGs and ATR, etc.) are unaffected.
The second problem with Reduced Squads ON is that the computer almost always buys more 'infantry/rifle' type squads than the human player. This means that the computer usually suffers more from from Reduced Squads ON than the human player. Thus, the human player gains an advantage playing with Reduced Squads ON against the computer. (Note that this is not true when playing a custom designer campaign like Long Long Road, hence my advice at the start of this post.)
The third problem with Reduced Squads ON is that the computer does not know how to optimize its transport assets. The human player can and will load more than one unit onto his transport units, thus optimizing his transport assets. The computer will not do this. Thus, the human player gains another advantage playing with Reduced Squads ON against the computer. (Note that this is not true when playing a custom designer campaign like Long Long Road.)
Bottom line: Playing with Reduced Squads ON is usually an advantage for the human player against the computer. I recommend playing with Reduced Squads OFF unless you are playing a custom designer campaign (like Long Long Road) or when playing against another human (by agreement).
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
Your logic is flawed in one major way, vahauser. Against the AI, which is flawed to begin with, ALL of my infantry and machine-gunners march on foot. Light mortars travel at foot speed, too. The only mounted units I use are those with a speed of 1 (medium mortars, pack howitzers, anti-tank guns, infantry guns). I play this way regardless of nation.
This is an infantry and heavy weapons game. The tanks, on this scale, are tied with the infantry.
Using the reduced squads is my way of approximating the real-life effects of previous wounds, sickness and rear-echelon details. It affects the AI, too, but so what? Overall casualties on both sides will be higher, and therefore makes achieving victory more difficult.
You still don't fight against the Japanese, do you? If you did, you'd understand my logic. Their reduced squads still outnumber mine by 1.5-1 to 2-1.
I have had 2 or 3 survivors from a squad somehow make it back behind the protective fire of supporting tanks, mortars and pack howitzers.
My machine-gunners aren't always so lucky. They are always primary targets.
So are AT gunners.
Like you, I wanna win, but even if I don't, my primary concern is seeing the cadre of a decimated squad living to fight another day. I don't believe in that "fighting to the last man" stuff.
This is an infantry and heavy weapons game. The tanks, on this scale, are tied with the infantry.
Using the reduced squads is my way of approximating the real-life effects of previous wounds, sickness and rear-echelon details. It affects the AI, too, but so what? Overall casualties on both sides will be higher, and therefore makes achieving victory more difficult.
You still don't fight against the Japanese, do you? If you did, you'd understand my logic. Their reduced squads still outnumber mine by 1.5-1 to 2-1.
I have had 2 or 3 survivors from a squad somehow make it back behind the protective fire of supporting tanks, mortars and pack howitzers.
My machine-gunners aren't always so lucky. They are always primary targets.
So are AT gunners.
Like you, I wanna win, but even if I don't, my primary concern is seeing the cadre of a decimated squad living to fight another day. I don't believe in that "fighting to the last man" stuff.
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
Erwin,
I'm playing with Reduced Squads ON in a campaign right now (Long Long Road). My logic is not flawed. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
If I have 500 points to spend and I buy 500 points of artillery (let's say a battalion of 12 medium howitzers), then I get my 500 points of artillery at 100% because Reduced Squads ON does not affect artillery. I get all 12 howitzers. No guns are in the repair shop and no gun crews are sick/unavailable. I get full value for my points spent.
If I have 1500 points to spend and I buy 1500 points of tanks (let's say a company of 15 tanks), then I get my 1500 points of tanks at 100% because Reduced Squads ON does not affect tanks. I get all 15 tanks. No tanks are in the repair shop and no tank crews are sick/unavailable. I get full value for my points spent.
If I have 250 points to spend and I buy 250 points of machineguns (let's say a company of 12 heavy machineguns), then I get my 250 points of machineguns at 100% because Reduced Squads ON does not affect small units like machineguns (or recon or ATRs, etc.). I get all 12 machineguns. No machineguns are in the repair shop and no machinegun crews are sick/unavailable. I get full value for my points spent.
But if I buy 300 points of infantry (let's say a company of 13 paratrooper squads), then I do NOT get full value for my paratroopers because Reduced Squads ON does affect infantry. I get all 13 squads, but at 90% strength (on average). So I spend 300 points but only get 270 points (90%) value. I do not get full value for my points spent.
If I am playing against the computer and both the computer and I have 3000 points to spend, and if the computer buys more infantry type units than I do (which is what the computer usually does), then the computer will be getting less value for its points spent than I will. This means that I gain an advantage, in terms of value for points spent, if I play against the computer using Reduced Squads ON.
The only cases where this does not apply is playing a custom designer campaign (like Long Long Road, where the campaign designer can purchase the computer's forces with Reduced Squads OFF), or when playing against another human player.
When playing a WW2 Long Campaign or a Generated Campaign, then the human player gains an advantage (in terms of value for points spent) against the computer if he turns Reduced Squads ON.
Bottom line: If you want to have an advantage against the computer when playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign, then play with Reduced Squads ON.
I'm playing with Reduced Squads ON in a campaign right now (Long Long Road). My logic is not flawed. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
If I have 500 points to spend and I buy 500 points of artillery (let's say a battalion of 12 medium howitzers), then I get my 500 points of artillery at 100% because Reduced Squads ON does not affect artillery. I get all 12 howitzers. No guns are in the repair shop and no gun crews are sick/unavailable. I get full value for my points spent.
If I have 1500 points to spend and I buy 1500 points of tanks (let's say a company of 15 tanks), then I get my 1500 points of tanks at 100% because Reduced Squads ON does not affect tanks. I get all 15 tanks. No tanks are in the repair shop and no tank crews are sick/unavailable. I get full value for my points spent.
If I have 250 points to spend and I buy 250 points of machineguns (let's say a company of 12 heavy machineguns), then I get my 250 points of machineguns at 100% because Reduced Squads ON does not affect small units like machineguns (or recon or ATRs, etc.). I get all 12 machineguns. No machineguns are in the repair shop and no machinegun crews are sick/unavailable. I get full value for my points spent.
But if I buy 300 points of infantry (let's say a company of 13 paratrooper squads), then I do NOT get full value for my paratroopers because Reduced Squads ON does affect infantry. I get all 13 squads, but at 90% strength (on average). So I spend 300 points but only get 270 points (90%) value. I do not get full value for my points spent.
If I am playing against the computer and both the computer and I have 3000 points to spend, and if the computer buys more infantry type units than I do (which is what the computer usually does), then the computer will be getting less value for its points spent than I will. This means that I gain an advantage, in terms of value for points spent, if I play against the computer using Reduced Squads ON.
The only cases where this does not apply is playing a custom designer campaign (like Long Long Road, where the campaign designer can purchase the computer's forces with Reduced Squads OFF), or when playing against another human player.
When playing a WW2 Long Campaign or a Generated Campaign, then the human player gains an advantage (in terms of value for points spent) against the computer if he turns Reduced Squads ON.
Bottom line: If you want to have an advantage against the computer when playing a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign, then play with Reduced Squads ON.
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
Bottom-bottom line is, Reduced Squads ON is a representation of historical fact, and provides some variation in the forces encountered. It is unfortunate that the code designers failed to incorporate it into some of the other units besides Infantry, but I believe Armour and Artillery units wouldn't be deployed for battle if they were short of personnel. I have read period reports and narratives where even regular riflemen were "conscripted" to fill the gun crew ranks, as ammo handlers. So it is reasonable to assume that armour and artillery units, preparing to engage an enemy, would try to fill their ranks before doing so. Even if that meant leaving a tank or gun unused in order to fill the crew slots. But the Ruduced Squads doesn't simply reflect the sick and invalid; it also accounts for the platoon and HQ messengers, clerks, cooks and other supernumeray soldiers who weren't expected to be on the front line.
For those of us who prefer to play our games to recreate historical WWII battles and events, this is a setting that is almost mandatory. For those who prefer to play the game as a "chess game on steroids", where units are identical all the time, then I suppose you should turn it OFF.
Vahauser, your logic and reasoning on this focus on the game mechanics, from an almost engineering POV (how does it work and how can I exploit it?). This is natural for you, because you are a self-described "power gamer", and these kinds of things are important if you need to get an advantage over your opponent (human or AI), in order to win.
For those of us who prefer to play our games to recreate historical WWII battles and events, this is a setting that is almost mandatory. For those who prefer to play the game as a "chess game on steroids", where units are identical all the time, then I suppose you should turn it OFF.
Vahauser, your logic and reasoning on this focus on the game mechanics, from an almost engineering POV (how does it work and how can I exploit it?). This is natural for you, because you are a self-described "power gamer", and these kinds of things are important if you need to get an advantage over your opponent (human or AI), in order to win.
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
FlashFyre,
Then why do I recommend against using Reduced Squads ON when playing against the computer in WW2 Long Campaign and Generated Campaigns?
If I was trying to gain an advantage as a 'power gamer' then shouldn't I be recommending for using Reduced Squads ON when playing against the computer in WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns?
And why am I using Reduced Squads ON in my current Wild Bill designed Long Long Road campaign when I know that this gives the computer an advantage?
Also, units went into battle understrength all the time. Artillery units were not immune to the effects of losses and breakdowns, nor were their crews immune either. Tank units were not immune to the effects of losses and breakdowns, nor were their crews immune either. Small units (like MGs and recon and ATRs, etc.) were not immune to the effects of losses and breakdowns. But they are in SPWAW.
I claim that your reasoning is not historical. The only Army in the world that tended to maintain their combat units near full strength was the Americans. Even at Kursk, where both sides had months to build up and prepare, many German and most Soviet combat units went into that battle understrength in tanks and guns and infantry and (especially) transport. At the Battle of the Bulge, after several months of preparation, the German combat units pretty much all entered the battle understrength across the board, and even the American combat units initially in the combat zone were understrength across the board.
I will not deny that the infantry suffered first and most often, and that maintaining full-strength infantry units in combat was more difficult than, say, artillery. Further, I will not deny that Reduced Squads ON does not impose a very harsh penalty on the player regarding infantry (after all, 90% effectives, on average, is not too bad).
Indeed, a crafty and creative human player can use those understrength infantry units to his advantage (as I mentioned in my first post in this thread) against the computer. Which, of course, is another reason that playing with Reduced Squads ON favors the human player versus the computer.
But the bottom line remains the bottom line. Whether I'm a power gamer or not is irrelevant. Whether I use engineering logic (which I'm guessing means cold and calculating and clinical) logic is relevant. And the bottom line is that playing SPWAW with Reduced Squads ON gives the human player an advantage versus the computer when playing WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns.
Then why do I recommend against using Reduced Squads ON when playing against the computer in WW2 Long Campaign and Generated Campaigns?
If I was trying to gain an advantage as a 'power gamer' then shouldn't I be recommending for using Reduced Squads ON when playing against the computer in WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns?
And why am I using Reduced Squads ON in my current Wild Bill designed Long Long Road campaign when I know that this gives the computer an advantage?
Also, units went into battle understrength all the time. Artillery units were not immune to the effects of losses and breakdowns, nor were their crews immune either. Tank units were not immune to the effects of losses and breakdowns, nor were their crews immune either. Small units (like MGs and recon and ATRs, etc.) were not immune to the effects of losses and breakdowns. But they are in SPWAW.
I claim that your reasoning is not historical. The only Army in the world that tended to maintain their combat units near full strength was the Americans. Even at Kursk, where both sides had months to build up and prepare, many German and most Soviet combat units went into that battle understrength in tanks and guns and infantry and (especially) transport. At the Battle of the Bulge, after several months of preparation, the German combat units pretty much all entered the battle understrength across the board, and even the American combat units initially in the combat zone were understrength across the board.
I will not deny that the infantry suffered first and most often, and that maintaining full-strength infantry units in combat was more difficult than, say, artillery. Further, I will not deny that Reduced Squads ON does not impose a very harsh penalty on the player regarding infantry (after all, 90% effectives, on average, is not too bad).
Indeed, a crafty and creative human player can use those understrength infantry units to his advantage (as I mentioned in my first post in this thread) against the computer. Which, of course, is another reason that playing with Reduced Squads ON favors the human player versus the computer.
But the bottom line remains the bottom line. Whether I'm a power gamer or not is irrelevant. Whether I use engineering logic (which I'm guessing means cold and calculating and clinical) logic is relevant. And the bottom line is that playing SPWAW with Reduced Squads ON gives the human player an advantage versus the computer when playing WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns.
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
I'm sorry, vahauser, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I fail to see how a full-stength human infantry squad of 9 or 12 or 13 facing a full-strength AI infantry squad of 15 or 20 is reducing the advantage over the computer.
To my mind, having only 6 or 8 men vs 12 or 18 gives the AI a big boost, since it's likely that my already reduced squads will be reduced further via attrition at a faster rate.
To prove this, I could post a combat txt dialog, but all I gotta do is look at what happens in the game itself.
On a related point, there's the issue of support points. I never spend my full allotment, but it's apparent that the AI will spend ALL of its.
It gets silly sometimes -- 2000+ support points for an assault on a 60-hex front? For ONE reinforced battalion? I have seen this in amphib assaults. Granted, this could be an abstraction of a three-day bombardment prior to the assault, but it still seems like overkill.
For dedicated naval/air support in amphibious operations, I suppose I should start a separate thread.
I fail to see how a full-stength human infantry squad of 9 or 12 or 13 facing a full-strength AI infantry squad of 15 or 20 is reducing the advantage over the computer.
To my mind, having only 6 or 8 men vs 12 or 18 gives the AI a big boost, since it's likely that my already reduced squads will be reduced further via attrition at a faster rate.
To prove this, I could post a combat txt dialog, but all I gotta do is look at what happens in the game itself.
On a related point, there's the issue of support points. I never spend my full allotment, but it's apparent that the AI will spend ALL of its.
It gets silly sometimes -- 2000+ support points for an assault on a 60-hex front? For ONE reinforced battalion? I have seen this in amphib assaults. Granted, this could be an abstraction of a three-day bombardment prior to the assault, but it still seems like overkill.
For dedicated naval/air support in amphibious operations, I suppose I should start a separate thread.
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
Well, Vahauser, as usual your reasoning and logic fit your playing style. You misinterpreted my comment on "understrength" units, but I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion over a design feature of this decade-old game.
My last words on this: "To each his own."
Have a nice day.
My last words on this: "To each his own."
Have a nice day.
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
I often play both ways. Turning it off represents a major upgrade of my unit, complete with replacements. The unit then goes into battle fresh and at full strength (such as before D-Day). I do this when a long period of time goes by between battles. If there is a battle every day during a campaign, then I turn it on. I enjoy both ways.
Glenn, have you turned Mines back ON yet?
Goblin
Edit: spelling error
Glenn, have you turned Mines back ON yet?
Goblin
Edit: spelling error
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
FlashFyre,
To each his own is fine. As long as the human player realizes that he is giving himself an advantage against the computer by turning Reduced Squads ON (in WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns), then the choice to enjoy the game however the player wants is fine by me.
It is impossible to quantify the "enjoyment factor". However, it is possible to quantify the effects of Reduced Squads ON.
But let's not confuse enjoyment with quantifiable game mechanics.
My enjoyment comes from placing as many disadvantages on myself as possible when playing against the computer. So, I won't put the computer at a disadvantage when I play a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign by choosing Reduced Squads ON. However, please note that I am indeed playing with Reduced Squads ON in my Long Long Road campaign, since that is a Wild Bill custom designed campaign where playing with Reduced Squads ON is a disadvantage for me.
To each his own is fine. As long as the human player realizes that he is giving himself an advantage against the computer by turning Reduced Squads ON (in WW2 Long Campaigns and Generated Campaigns), then the choice to enjoy the game however the player wants is fine by me.
It is impossible to quantify the "enjoyment factor". However, it is possible to quantify the effects of Reduced Squads ON.
But let's not confuse enjoyment with quantifiable game mechanics.
My enjoyment comes from placing as many disadvantages on myself as possible when playing against the computer. So, I won't put the computer at a disadvantage when I play a WW2 Long Campaign or Generated Campaign by choosing Reduced Squads ON. However, please note that I am indeed playing with Reduced Squads ON in my Long Long Road campaign, since that is a Wild Bill custom designed campaign where playing with Reduced Squads ON is a disadvantage for me.
RE: "Reduced Squads": The Stuff We Don't See
THat is how it should be played, guys. I've always felt that it adds a touch of realism not often found in other tactcial games.
I never really noticed that it put the computer at a disadvantage. That's okay, when I fight, I need all the help I can get just to eak out a victory!
Fight it like you think best. That is the great feature of SPWAW.
Wild Bill
I never really noticed that it put the computer at a disadvantage. That's okay, when I fight, I need all the help I can get just to eak out a victory!
Fight it like you think best. That is the great feature of SPWAW.
Wild Bill
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant