Matrix Games Forums

Another enhancement which must already have been asked for at some point: whenever combat results in equipment losses, a small proportion of the lost equipment should appear in the opposing side's replacement pool. If the units suffering losses are evaporated, cannot trace a line of supply, and the hex they occupy is captured the proportion of equipment losses appearing in the opposing side's replacement pool should be a bit higher.

The scenario designer can create empty equipment slots in selected units which will absorb this 'captured' equipment from it's own replacement pool.

A number of scenarios I've designed could have used such a feature. The current mechanism to simulate capturing and absorbing enemy equipment (disbanding 'dummy' units via events) is cumbersome, arbitrary, and lacks realism.

That would be sweet.

It's a bit sketchy...I mean for example if Germans capture a T-34, should they be able to us eit immediatly or only after they have trained a crew for it? And how would you simulate training this crew.

not too hard to train from one tank to anouther! especially after running some instructors through the basic tank.. in the game most of the red army materials I captured sat arround unused!

ORIGINAL: Karri

It's a bit sketchy...I mean for example if Germans capture a T-34, should they be able to us eit immediatly or only after they have trained a crew for it? And how would you simulate training this crew.

You make a good point. Ralph would need to look into this, but perhaps there's a way to give captured equipment the lowest priority when fulfilling units' requests for replacements.

The scenario designer has ultimate control over which units, if any, are eligible to receive captured equipment as replacements, and in what quantities. The degree to which captured equipment is used is scenario-specific: the Japanese in the Malaya 1941-42 campaign were highly reliant on captured Commonwealth equipment particularly trucks and other motor vehicles, which they put to use almost immediately. OTOH there is no evidence the Egyptians ever refurbished or used any of the numerous Israeli AFVs they captured during the course of the 1973 war along the Suez Canal.

ORIGINAL: Karri
It's a bit sketchy...I mean for example if Germans capture a T-34, should they be able to us eit immediatly or only after they have trained a crew for it? And how would you simulate training this crew.

Immediately, after the first turn of capturing T-34s there will, likely be a steady, if small, stream of captured T-34s to work with. At that point the time between captue and use will be a moot point. Besides, the player would have to wait at least one turn for them to be in use, which could be anywhere from 6 hours to a full week. Which, again, makes sense, except for genre stradling scenarios such as FitE the scale of the scenario and time scale generaly coorelate. Therefore, in a small scenario, dpicting a single battle, with 6 hour turns you might see a captured T-43 put to use right away, trained crew or not. In a larger scenario, say EA, you'd be waiting a whole week for any of those T-34s you've caputred to enter the line.

FitE, of course, with half-week turns simulating the entire Soviet War is the esception to this usual logic.

ok, why do I have a very large pool of unused t34s as the german [player ?

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, why do I have a very large pool of unused t34s as the german [player ?

Because the designers have abstractly added a stream of replacement T-34s, through disbands or some other method.

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: Karri
It's a bit sketchy...I mean for example if Germans capture a T-34, should they be able to us eit immediatly or only after they have trained a crew for it? And how would you simulate training this crew.

Immediately, after the first turn of capturing T-34s there will, likely be a steady, if small, stream of captured T-34s to work with. At that point the time between captue and use will be a moot point. Besides, the player would have to wait at least one turn for them to be in use, which could be anywhere from 6 hours to a full week. Which, again, makes sense, except for genre stradling scenarios such as FitE the scale of the scenario and time scale generaly coorelate. Therefore, in a small scenario, dpicting a single battle, with 6 hour turns you might see a captured T-43 put to use right away, trained crew or not. In a larger scenario, say EA, you'd be waiting a whole week for any of those T-34s you've caputred to enter the line.

FitE, of course, with half-week turns simulating the entire Soviet War is the esception to this usual logic.

I undrestand trucks, which are not really hard to drive no matter who made them, but tanks especially modern tanks are another issue. Not to mention you enter the realm of supply. I mean do they use different kind of fuel? What about ammo? Spare parts? All that and more.

Tank is just as useful as a pile of metal unless you have someone who knows how to use it. And a German infantry squad manning a T-34 is really no use, as they know nothing of tank tactics.

Who decides what goes into use? For example during Winter War finns captured hordes of equipment. Artillery and small arms mostly went to use right away, but majority of tanks were never used.

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: Karri
It's a bit sketchy...I mean for example if Germans capture a T-34, should they be able to us eit immediatly or only after they have trained a crew for it? And how would you simulate training this crew.

Immediately, after the first turn of capturing T-34s there will, likely be a steady, if small, stream of captured T-34s to work with. At that point the time between captue and use will be a moot point. Besides, the player would have to wait at least one turn for them to be in use, which could be anywhere from 6 hours to a full week. Which, again, makes sense, except for genre stradling scenarios such as FitE the scale of the scenario and time scale generaly coorelate. Therefore, in a small scenario, dpicting a single battle, with 6 hour turns you might see a captured T-43 put to use right away, trained crew or not. In a larger scenario, say EA, you'd be waiting a whole week for any of those T-34s you've caputred to enter the line.
FitE, of course, with half-week turns simulating the entire Soviet War is the esception to this usual logic.

I undrestand trucks, which are not really hard to drive no matter who made them, but tanks especially modern tanks are another issue. Not to mention you enter the realm of supply. I mean do they use different kind of fuel? What about ammo? Spare parts? All that and more.

It could easily be assumed that the advancing army is capturing supply for these vehicles just as they are capturing the equipment itself.

Tank is just as useful as a pile of metal unless you have someone who knows how to use it. And a German infantry squad manning a T-34 is really no use, as they know nothing of tank tactics.

The designer could only include slots for T-34s in armoured units (which takes care of infantry driving the things).

Who decides what goes into use? For example during Winter War finns captured hordes of equipment. Artillery and small arms mostly went to use right away, but majority of tanks were never used.

Karri. You have to keep in mind that the designer has the last word in all of this. The designer simply has to include no spots for captured equipment if he doesn't want it included.

ORIGINAL: Karri


...


Who decides what goes into use? For example during Winter War finns captured hordes of equipment. Artillery and small arms mostly went to use right away, but majority of tanks were never used.

The scenario designer.

In your example numerous Finnish units would have empty equipment slots to receive captured Soviet small arms and artillery; only a handful of Finnish units, presumably specialist tank or self-propelled gun units would have empty equipment slots for captured T-34s, and then only a few tanks per unit. It's up to the scenario designer to research and make the appropriate allocations.

This proposal has been around before. I rather like the idea but I think capturing equipment also needs to be tied to occupation (advancing after combat) of the target hex.

Regards, RhinoBones

Often 1-2 items of equipment would be used until they broke down or ran out of ammo, etc, and they would be discarded - these are "ad hoc" uses of captured equipment.
 
Use of large amounts of captured equipment in units was much less common than we think - supply issues have been alluded to - the main ones woudl be spare parts and ammo - all armies used diesel and petrol in some amounts, so getting either was less of an issue than getting the right calibre of ammo, or the right distibuter cap!
 
I've recently seen, for example, a page on finnish Anti-tank-rifles, that notes that the finns captured hundreds from the Soviets, but only used them locally until they ran out of ammo then sent them back to be warehoused - some were sold to the USA after the war!
 
Some units using captured German tanks in use in hte Soviet army are listed at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Capturedtanks.htm on specific dates - in general the numbers are very low - 1, 2 of a type - but I dont' know how exhaustive the list is.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

This proposal has been around before. I rather like the idea but I think capturing equipment also needs to be tied to occupation (advancing after combat) of the target hex.

Regards, RhinoBones

Agreed - only combat in which the units suffering losses lose control of the hex(es) they are occupying would result in some small proportion of their equipment losses being added to the opposing force's replacement pool. A slightly higher proportion of equipment losses can be added to opposing force's replacement pool if the units suffering losses cannot trace a supply line.

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
This proposal has been around before. I rather like the idea but I think capturing equipment also needs to be tied to occupation (advancing after combat) of the target hex.
Regards, RhinoBones

Agreed - only combat in which the units suffering losses lose control of the hex(es) they are occupying would result in some small proportion of their equipment losses being added to the opposing force's replacement pool. A slightly higher proportion of equipment losses can be added to opposing force's replacement pool if the units suffering losses cannot trace a supply line.

Good points.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Often 1-2 items of equipment would be used until they broke down or ran out of ammo, etc, and they would be discarded - these are "ad hoc" uses of captured equipment.

Use of large amounts of captured equipment in units was much less common than we think - supply issues have been alluded to - the main ones woudl be spare parts and ammo - all armies used diesel and petrol in some amounts, so getting either was less of an issue than getting the right calibre of ammo, or the right distibuter cap!

I've recently seen, for example, a page on finnish Anti-tank-rifles, that notes that the finns captured hundreds from the Soviets, but only used them locally until they ran out of ammo then sent them back to be warehoused - some were sold to the USA after the war!

Some units using captured German tanks in use in hte Soviet army are listed at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Capturedtanks.htm on specific dates - in general the numbers are very low - 1, 2 of a type - but I dont' know how exhaustive the list is.

What you say may be true in many cases, but there are plenty of counter-examples. The Japanese I referred to earlier captured hundreds of Commonwealth motor vehicles during the opening days of their campaign in Malaya - they used these vehicles, along with many more they captured as the campaign unfolded, all the way down the peninsula until they captured Singapore. Without these captured vehicles it is doubtful whether the Japanese would have been able to marshal the supplies and reinforcements they needed for their final push to capture Singapore.

The IDF had several units in the 1973 war equipped almost completely with Egyptian and Syrian equipment captured in the 1967 war (as well as some captured as the 1973 war progressed). Several IDF units during that war used equipment captured as the war itself was going on, particularly transport vehicles such as the Soviet-made BTR-152 and BTR-50 and Czech OT-62. Interestingly Israeli special operations forces during that war were equipped almost exculsively with captured Soviet-made AK-47s and RPG-7s.

How do those examples counter what I said??
 
They are examples of massed use, which i specifically acknowledged - although.
 
Use of vehicles captured by the IDF during the same war they were captured in is exactly what I mean by ad hoc use.
 
While the large numbers of various vehicles integrated into the IDF in various forms after their various wars are good examples of massed adoption - albeit on an unusual scale for combat equipment.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

How do those examples counter what I said??

They are examples of massed use, which i specifically acknowledged - although.

Use of vehicles captured by the IDF during the same war they were captured in is exactly what I mean by ad hoc use.

While the large numbers of various vehicles integrated into the IDF in various forms after their various wars are good examples of massed adoption - albeit on an unusual scale for combat equipment.

I agree there is a wide continuum regarding how captured equipment was handled historically - from almost immediate and often 'ad hoc' use to long-term absorption/adoption to no use whatsoever.

My interest is in having such an enhancement added to a future version/patch of TOAW. Whether and how such a feature is used is entirely up to the scenario designer. I would use it in several of my designs.

Yep - couldn't agree more.

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, why do I have a very large pool of unused t34s as the german [player ?

Because Pensari finish armored brigade use them (T-34, T-26...). it however comes later than historically. Check OOB in the Editor.