Hierarchy explained

[laska2k8]

just to know of what we are talking about, I was wondering of unit scale in the game.

When I look at subordinates units I see 20 rifles or 15 SMG or whatever number you like,
this has to be intended as 20 = men or 20 = brigades/regiments/companies etc...

max

[Arkady]

As explained in other threads, it can be anything, 20 squads, 20 regiments etc...
It depends on scenario scale and designer choice

[Vic]

the scale differs per scenario.

[PDiFolco]

Yes it differs, but from my experience, given their costs and effects, it looks like the figures-to-unit ratio is the same across various units- at least land ones -  ie if you say an Inf unit is 1 man then a tank unit is 1 tank, if you say it's 100 men ( a company), it's 100 tanks (a regiment).
This explains why we often end up with a Panzer Div having 25x Inf (2500 men, a couple regiments) and just 2x Tanks (2 regiments also). This puzzled me initially, I was thinking like a grog "let's says 1 units is a company", and then the unit compositions didn't match ! [:D]
 
 

[laska2k8]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
....if you say an Inf unit is 1 man then a tank unit is 1 tank, if you say it's 100 men ( a company), it's 100 tanks (a regiment)......
.... "let's says 1 units is a company"....

This was my initial state of confusion and the inability to figure thousands of men in the battlefield leaded by a lonely tank.
So I agree to think like a grog...
But could someone tell me how to "convert" a german armored division in AT format ?

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: laska2k4

But could someone tell me how to "convert" a german armored division in AT format ?

I think the knowledge of the exact ratio between units (men, guns, tanks, etc.) might be a crucial point to design historical scenarios. I would known that, for example, 1 infantry unit represents multiples of 1000 men, 1 tank unit multiply of 50 tank and 1 gun multiply of 100 guns, in this way scenario's designers could build historical OOBs with a little effort.

[Max 86]

Having an exact formula for conversion is never gonna happen. Try to build a division that has a little of everything yet stays within an acceptable stacking value. The tank units add a lot to the stack with very few numbers whereas with infantry, you can have greater numbers for the same stack value.
 
Which brings me to another point. It seems from reading many of the unit composition posts that most folks are not taking into account the stacking value of the unit and the subsequent combat penalties.  I am wondering if the 'stacking points per hex per attack' number needs to increase to allow for greater flexibility in unit design or the combat penalty needs to increase to discourage players from 'loading up' super units.

[Gresbeck]

ORIGINAL: JMass

I think the knowledge of the exact ratio between units (men, guns, tanks, etc.) might be a crucial point to design historical scenarios. I would known that, for example, 1 infantry unit represents multiples of 1000 men, 1 tank unit multiply of 50 tank and 1 gun multiply of 100 guns, in this way scenario's designers could build historical OOBs with a little effort.

But probably there's no predefined exact ratio because it's up to you to determine it and to set appropriate ratios of building costs and stacking points. You could say 1 infantry represents multiple of 1000 men and 1 tank only 1 tank; but you could also say 1 tank represents multiple of 50 tanks. You should of course set different building cost ratios for the two different situations. Probably a good starting point could be the stack value. Suppose you want to create a scenario at divisional level. Let's assume a division covers 15 km front (don't know if it was really so). You should set a game scale 1 hex = 15 Km; you should build an OOB representing a historical OOB and determine yourself unit ratios (provided you set appropriate building costs); and you should set a stacking value of 100 for the sum of the subft included in the division.

[Barthheart]

You can also go into each SubFormationType and change how it fights with respect to every other SFT in the game and thereby define your own specific ratios.

[Gresbeck]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

You can also go into each SubFormationType and change how it fights with respect to every other SFT in the game and thereby define your own specific ratios.

Interesting point. But (probably a stupid question, I'm not a scenario designer and I never opened the scenario editor) can you change how it fights only with respect to enemy formations or can you also give it a bonus / penalty in respect to other SFT in the same container?

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck


Interesting point. But (probably a stupid question, I'm not a scenario designer and I never opened the scenario editor) can you change how it fights only with respect to enemy formations or can you also give it a bonus / penalty in respect to other SFT in the same container?

I believe you can by making the regieme or people who make up you forces different than that of your opponent. This would make your TANK different than his TANK, if you can see that.... This is a guess from reading not actually do it in the editor.... I seem to be too lazy to actually start any of my "great" ideas...[:D]

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: JMass

ORIGINAL: laska2k4

But could someone tell me how to "convert" a german armored division in AT format ?

I think the knowledge of the exact ratio between units (men, guns, tanks, etc.) might be a crucial point to design historical scenarios. I would known that, for example, 1 infantry unit represents multiples of 1000 men, 1 tank unit multiply of 50 tank and 1 gun multiply of 100 guns, in this way scenario's designers could build historical OOBs with a little effort.

My take - and it is kind'a confirmed when playing that it's that was intended- is that you take the multiple you want, but it has to be the same for all land units (except maybe trucks..).
In fact the SFTypes stats seem to have been designed at the 1:1 level - ie 1 man vs 1 tank or vs 1 gun.

In many WW2 scenarios the approximate ratio is 1/100 : 1 inf or tank or art unit = 100 real men/tanks/guns (maybe less for arty..).

For air and naval it's less clear : air units could be 20-some planes ( a carrier can hold 5-8 units), naval could be 1 (BB, CV), or 2 to 4 ships (CA, DD). Transport are any number of various ships/planes according to the total carrying cap.

[karonagames]

I think it is difficult for "grognard/hardcore" wargamers to get their heads around the concepts that AT uses to represent WWII combat, when they have spent many years demanding accurate OOB's and accurate representation of relative combat power.

While AT doesn't pretend to offer ultra accurate OOB's , it does a fantastic job of representing relative combat power, through a very elegent system that the reflects the difference in leadership and logistic abilities of different armies, as well as giving players the ability to explore the outcomes of "what if" scenarios through the research options - want Tiger tanks in 1941? Fine, but you will pay the price if your level 1 infantry can't break through level2 infantry opponents.

I too can trace my grognard roots back to Avalon Hill/SPI/GDW boardgames and through SSI/SSG ATari/C64 games, but I have to say that my initial impression of AT is that it will provide a very good, mid-level, simulation of WW2 combat that allows you as a commander to face similar decisions as your historical counterparts. You may not have a counter to represent kampfgruppe Peiper but it is no different than having to decide whether you add your one remaining tank sub-unit to your hard pressed infantry division/regiment to bolster its defence or whether you hold it back to form a more mobile counterattacking force.

For me the mix of concepts seen in Empire and TOAW/Battlefront/Atomic Games et al. that AT uses, produces a game that is F U N to play and recreates historical events in the same way that that The Battle of the Bulge movie from the 60's represented the Ardennes Offensive of 1944, is good enough for me, as I never could take the sight GI's stopping "Tiger" tanks by rolling barrels of burning petrol into them too seriously!

[freeboy]

I agree with the above, and if you want an accurate oob, nothing is stopping you! Just make up each side and play against yourself always giving the units what is accurate per your mind.. also, think a gun is missing, simply add it.. AT is great like that..
For myself, and I do consider myself grogged out, AT is a great pbem game and I do love the ability to modify my strategies, ie increase and develope whatever I need as per my over arching goals, as was done historically!

Currently I am driving on Karkov and Moscow in one pbem game, my enemy spent heavily on fighters and dive bombers..
so I need to add forward flak units and fighters, lest I loose the air war!
I added medium and heavy tanks, cause I did not want to lose the ground armor war! (r41's big weakness for the Germans is the limited number of city/facories and the need to spread stuff around each turn as a result.)

So back to the topic, I like the flexabilituy to move from one scale to another and one oob to another, as in life these where made from best guesses to the needs of the situations which presented themselves.

[seille]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
Currently I am driving on Karkov and Moscow in one pbem game, my enemy spent heavily on fighters and dive bombers..
so I need to add forward flak units and fighters, lest I loose the air war!
I added medium and heavy tanks, cause I did not want to lose the ground armor war! (r41's big weakness for the Germans is the limited number of city/facories and the need to spread stuff around each turn as a result.)

Hehe, that must be our game [:D]
You think i HEAVILY invested here ? I´m far away from.
Just a few fighters for self protection [;)]
Do not fear the tank monsters so much since you can produce only a few of them and i already
spread lot´s of bazookas among my ground troops. And the winter comes soon + Siberian units [&o]

[freeboy]

Seille is correct, but U must maintain air superiority.. and also pound the crap out of the reds before winter! I am pushing towards Karkov and through the forest to the east of Moscow.. my next plunge will be toward Crimia! also am I building up for the Leningrad battle.. but I must take Karkov.. then he will not know where that battle veteran group will go?

Talk about a thread hijack
where where we ? right, unit balance and composition... one of my pet praises of this game engine, that u can tailor your force against the enemies tailoring.. oops time to build more "X"

I am only worried about Karkov above as he gets troops there, from then on he will be guessing!

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

ORIGINAL: JMass

ORIGINAL: laska2k4

But could someone tell me how to "convert" a german armored division in AT format ?

I think the knowledge of the exact ratio between units (men, guns, tanks, etc.) might be a crucial point to design historical scenarios. I would known that, for example, 1 infantry unit represents multiples of 1000 men, 1 tank unit multiply of 50 tank and 1 gun multiply of 100 guns, in this way scenario's designers could build historical OOBs with a little effort.

My take - and it is kind'a confirmed when playing that it's that was intended- is that you take the multiple you want, but it has to be the same for all land units (except maybe trucks..).
In fact the SFTypes stats seem to have been designed at the 1:1 level - ie 1 man vs 1 tank or vs 1 gun.

In many WW2 scenarios the approximate ratio is 1/100 : 1 inf or tank or art unit = 100 real men/tanks/guns (maybe less for arty..).

For air and naval it's less clear : air units could be 20-some planes ( a carrier can hold 5-8 units), naval could be 1 (BB, CV), or 2 to 4 ships (CA, DD). Transport are any number of various ships/planes according to the total carrying cap.

This has been discussed in a number of other threads...I've asked the question at least 3 times(!) hoping someone might have some insight on it. What JMass says is right, except I wouldn't say the knowledge of the exact ratio "might" be a crucial point, it IS the crucial point in designing an accurate OOB (as accurate as possible anyway). From looking at the standard scenarios we can all get a feel for it (generally in a tank division there will be 1-4 tanks and 30-50 men, something like that), but it sure would be nice to come up with that "exact ratio". From what I've gathered from the Vic and tweber (correct me if I'm wrong), the design of the game is not based on such a ratio....I think it's going to be up to one of us to "discover" the best possible ratio. Perhaps PDiFolco is right, and the ratio is 1:1, 1 Tank = 1 Rifle....have to check it out!

[Barthheart]

I think the point is you can design in whatever ratio you want by changing all the. The game is that flexible. The subformationtypes as supplied with the game are not cast in stone. They were created and used by the Designer as they gave HIM the kind of balance HE wanted to show the scenarios the game came with. I'm fairly sure that with the N-number of people planning to mod this game there will N+1 ratios fo INF to TANK etc.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

I think the point is you can design in whatever ratio you want by changing all the. The game is that flexible. The subformationtypes as supplied with the game are not cast in stone. They were created and used by the Designer as they gave HIM the kind of balance HE wanted to show the scenarios the game came with. I'm fairly sure that with the N-number of people planning to mod this game there will N+1 ratios fo INF to TANK etc.

I agree, and to me this is one of the most exciting aspects of this game. I haven't been this enthused by a game in years.

Rick

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

I think the point is you can design in whatever ratio you want by changing all the. The game is that flexible. The subformationtypes as supplied with the game are not cast in stone. They were created and used by the Designer as they gave HIM the kind of balance HE wanted to show the scenarios the game came with. I'm fairly sure that with the N-number of people planning to mod this game there will N+1 ratios fo INF to TANK etc.

I agree, and to me this is one of the most exciting aspects of this game. I haven't been this enthused by a game in years.

Rick

I also agree...this is one of the coolest games I've seen in a looooong time...