Matrix Games Forums

How are infantry handled in the game?

Are the mechanics quite abstract or detailed?

Ive played the tow2 demo and the infantry are handled ok. I enjoyed the CM series. However I'd like to see a wego game which has more detailed infantry like in the Close Combat games.

Less detail than CM. No troop count, step losses.
 

Having said that, the next game in the series, seems to have as one of the goals, an improved infantry combat model.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Having said that, the next game in the series, seems to have as one of the goals, an improved infantry combat model.

Good Hunting.

MR

I'm curious where you found that? I have been coming back here infrequently but nothing appears to be going on apart from the work of a few dedicated modders. I have not read one thing from the developers, in fact has Koios ever posted any discussion on the game at all? It doesn't bode well for the game or the series imo.

ORIGINAL: Ron

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Having said that, the next game in the series, seems to have as one of the goals, an improved infantry combat model.
Good Hunting.
MR

I'm curious where you found that? I have been coming back here infrequently but nothing appears to be going on apart from the work of a few dedicated modders. I have not read one thing from the developers, in fact has Koios ever posted any discussion on the game at all? It doesn't bode well for the game or the series imo.

Nothing is known of the work of the developers but there is a list of wants for the next PzC and a number of infantry improvement wants are on the list. You have to wait for Erik to announce anything upcoming.

Has anyone ever considered breaking down infantry squads into fire teams? Having a firepower value for a group of men (as is also the case with CM) always struck me as a half-measure, or perhaps a tenth of one.[;)]  I'm not interested in the one-to-one deal, either, BTW. I don't want to mess with all those individual soldiers/figures. I just want infantry to use tactics that are, in some form or other, related to the real deal, intra-squad, fire and maneuver, that sort of thing. I'm sure that this must have been discussed by the CM community at one time. If so, it's a shame that BF didn't do something with it. IMHO, it would have improved infantry play in the CM games enormously.

Question: Is a tank crew in PzC or CM more like the crew of a weapon or an infantry squad?

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Has anyone ever considered breaking down infantry squads into fire teams? Having a firepower value for a group of men (as is also the case with CM) always struck me as a half-measure, or perhaps a tenth of one.[;)] 

I had suggested they do it the way it was done in Panzer War. That is give the squad a weapon (LMG) like it was mounted on a vehicle. That way a squad could fire at two separate targets instead of combining the LMG firepower with the rifle teams firepower and only fire at a single target. It would then somewhat mitigate the statistical advantage of dividing squads into 2 teams.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Question: Is a tank crew in PzC or CM more like the crew of a weapon or an infantry squad?

It should be like a crew. A squads gets some of its defense by being a dispersed target. Crews tend to be more packed in. It probably should be like a crew team.

ORIGINAL: Mobius
It should be like a crew. A squads gets some of its defense by being a dispersed target. Crews tend to be more packed in. It probably should be like a crew team.

That's my take on it, too.

Because of that, there's something that strikes me as being structurally inconsistent in these games:

There are 2-5 man vehicle crews that generate fire and support other units from a single location.

There are 2-6 man weapon crews that generate fire and support other units from a single location.

There are 10+ man infantry squads that generate fire and support other units from a single location.

See the problem?

This structure implies that "a unit, is a unit, is a unit," when in point of fact the infantry squad is really a collection of fire teams, "crews" if you will. The infantry squads depicted in CM or PzC should capable of engaging multiple targets in support of the other teams in their squad. It's as if a round peg has been pounded into a square hole. This has bugged me ever since AH Tobruk and Squad Leader, btw.

In a whole host of games, both board a computer, the sophistication and nuance of infantry tactics gets lost when the arm is shoe-horned into a game in which it has to share the battlefield with AFV. And the original sin are game mechanics that conceptualize an infantry squad as a slow, unarmoured "unit" with very limited firepower, at least relative to the real stars of the contest, the tank "unit."

It's not my intention to dump on PzC about this. The developer is simply following a well-worn path in this regard. Someday, I hope that someone decides to do it differently. I shall not hold my breath while I wait. [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
This structure implies that "a unit, is a unit, is a unit," when in point of fact the infantry squad is really a collection of fire teams, "crews" if you will. The infantry squads depicted in CM or PzC should capable of engaging multiple targets in support of the other teams in their squad. It's as if a round peg has been pounded into a square hole. This has bugged me ever since AH Tobruk and Squad Leader, btw.

This has been covered before.
Fireteam is a post WWII term. While certain services in late WWII evolved into several fireteam like elements the majority did not. Now most did have two components; a fire element and a manuever element. The fire element contained the squad light machinegun while the manuever element was an all rifle team. When the rifle team was able to put out enough firepower of its own to cover the other then it could be called a fire team.

ORIGINAL: Mobius
This has been covered before.

Then why doesn't a developer do something with it?[:)]

While certain services in late WWII evolved into several fireteam like elements the majority did not.

I think that the USMC had three four-man teams in the second half of the war built around BAR.

I dunno whether they called them teams or elements.

Now most did have two components; a fire element and a manuever element.

Same question as above, why doesn't a developer do something with this?

As is, squads have to depend on other squads for suppressive fire, rather than their own weapons.

Like I said above, this goes back a long way.

Is the reduction of an infantry squad into a blob characterized by a firepower, movement and morale value so ingrained into the logic of wargamers that it's unalterable?

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I think that the USMC had three four-man teams in the second half of the war built around BAR.

Yes, but few USMC fought on the Eastern Front.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I dunno whether they called them teams or elements.

Two of my uncles were Marines in WWII and I asked them about if they were organized into fire teams or other groups. Basically they said they were in any way that was needed. That not much help for us who want to represent them with counters or pixeltroops.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Is the reduction of an infantry squad into a blob characterized by a firepower, movement and morale value so ingrained into the logic of wargamers that it's unalterable?

The general concept is that the player is at some level in the command structure As such they would command one level down and be aware of the combat power two levels down.

So if the player is commanding multiple platoons then that is one level down. The squad would be two levels down.
The fire team is three levels down.

POE,

I wouldn't object to having LMG "gun" unit assigned to some infantry squads, but I don't think I'd want PC series to goes much beyond that. That would be getting down to a level I'd rather not play. I'd much prefer modifying the system a little so that I could have one squad rushing, while another squad in same platoon provided suppressive fire.

Doesn't Close Combat do what you want in this regard? I've only ran the demo long long time ago, but I thought it had the single soldier units (which would allow you to form your own ad-hoc fire teams).

Also, if you were intent on doing something like this in PC:K, couldn't you create your own units and try it out on a custom scenario?

Rick

ORIGINAL: Rick

I wouldn't object to having LMG "gun" unit assigned to some infantry squads, but I don't think I'd want PC series to goes much beyond that.

You can definitely get carried away with this. The obvious (absurd) extreme being 1-to-1, which I have no interest in hassling with. I don't want to move all those pieces around. I just want a squad to be able to suppress an enemy and maneuver against that same enemy, simultaneously.

Doesn't Close Combat do what you want in this regard? I've only ran the demo long long time ago, but I thought it had the single soldier units (which would allow you to form your own ad-hoc fire teams).

Sorta, you could buy half-squads, but that's really not the same thing. I would note that I consider CC to be superior to the CM or PzC games when it comes to infantry combat.

Also, if you were intent on doing something like this in PC:K, couldn't you create your own units and try it out on a custom scenario?

I'm not really "intent" on doing any of this.[:)] I genuinely wish a developer would try it, but I'm a realist, too. Given it's thirty-year reign over the paper/computer battlefield, the "immutable squad blob" will likely outlive yours truly. [;)]

The problem here is at the basic level of infantry firepower for the squads. With few exceptions the WWII squads were armed with bold action rifles and supported by a single light automatic weapon.

In the German Army alone that weapon was belt fed. In the US, UK and USSR squads it was drum or magazine fed.

Huge difference in effectiveness.

The Germans used the LMG as a fire base and the rest of the squad to maneuver. By the end of the war other nations had pretty much gone to that same formula except the US Army. In the US Army case the BAR was so poor at suppressive fire that it wasn't used in that manner. The upside for the US Army was, and it's probably why the BAR was never replaced, the M1 Garand was the only automatic rifle in the world at the time that was standard issue. The US infantry squad was weak in automatic firepower support but extremely strong in regular aimed rifle fire.

There are extreme differences in the way the nations of WWII solved the infantry combat model for the squad. While they pretty much look the same on paper for their TO&E's the tactics and employment were far apart.

That makes for some issues in a war game. Do you force the nationality characteristics on a gamer? In alot of my CM scenarios I do as much of that as I can. For example, I make you learn to fight like a British officer if you are in command of a British infantry company. Your infantry is brittle, won't take alot of casualties and goes to ground pretty easy. On the other hand it has lots of support weapons and firepower if you can employ it.

Same goes for the Soviets, Americans and Germans in my scenarios I build in the national tendencies into the scenarios themselves. I would like to see PC have that capacity.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I'm not really "intent" on doing any of this.[:)] I genuinely wish a developer would try it, but I'm a realist, too. Given it's thirty-year reign over the paper/computer battlefield, the "immutable squad blob" will likely outlive yours truly. [;)]

In 1987 West End Games put out a game called Fire Team that was the evolution of what we are discussing here. It was a GREAT GAME!

It was based on US vs Soviet combat in the 1980's. Squads were based in 4 elements. The 2 fireteams and the squad automatic weapon and the leader.

I made the NATO version and did the West Germans and British forces and sent it to West End. That was about the same time that board wargames were on the decline and they never published my expansion module. I still have it in the shipping tube when they sent it back to me with a nice note attached.

I have 10 full sets of counters for Fire Team and of course not only the fireteam maps but the SL/ASL maps that work for any tactical combat game of the same or similar scale.

It has been done in the past. It could be done again. You just need to keep the correct historical context and it would be good to go.

Urrah!! [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Yes, but few USMC fought on the Eastern Front.

Are you sure they didn't fight in Russia during the Russian Civil War? [X(]

Just having some fun with you here....I have no idea if they did or not......[:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The Germans used the LMG as a fire base and the rest of the squad to maneuver. By the end of the war other nations had pretty much gone to that same formula except the US Army. In the US Army case the BAR was so poor at suppressive fire that it wasn't used in that manner. The upside for the US Army was, and it's probably why the BAR was never replaced, the M1 Garand was the only automatic rifle in the world at the time that was standard issue. The US infantry squad was weak in automatic firepower support but extremely strong in regular aimed rifle fire.

The US B.A.R. had a 20 round magazine while the British Bren had a 30 round (loaded to 29) magazine. So if this was a ratio the BAR would have 2/3 the firepower of the Bren. The French had the Châtellerault FM, which I think was similar to the Bren and the Poles had a version of the BAR.

What one would want to do is set the firepower of the LMG in terms of bolt action rifle firepower. Then set the firepower of a rifleteams SAR like the M1 in those terms too.
I think the Russian had a SAR too but I don't know the numbers that were used.

BAR facts:

Issued as automatic fire support for a squad, all men were trained at the basic level how to operate and fire the weapon in case the designated BAR operator(s) were killed or wounded. In an attempt to overcome the BAR's limited continuous-fire capability, U.S. Marine and some army units used two BAR fire teams per squad. One team would typically provide covering fire until a magazine was empty, whereupon the second team would open fire, thus allowing the first team to reload. While not without design flaws (a thin-diameter, fixed barrel that quickly overheated, limited magazine capacity, complex field-strip/cleaning procedure, unreliable recoil buffer mechanism, a gas cylinder assembly made of corrosion-prone metals, and many small internal parts), the BAR proved rugged and reliable enough when regularly field-stripped and cleaned.


As a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) the BAR was in a class of it's own. At the bottom of the list of capabilities compared with other countries SAW's. I show that there were 61,000 M1918A2 BAR's made. That number could include those made for Korea since the weapon was continued in use in that conflict as well.

Bren Gun facts:

The Bren Light Machine Gun was introduced into the British Army in 1937. The Bren revolutionized the British & Australian Army organization and equipment from the organization that had been in place since the First World War to what we know as the organization of the Army in World War Two.

The introduction of the Bren meant that tactics could change. It was now possible to have light, fast moving automatic fire moving just as fast as the men themselves could. With the Bren's predecessor, the LEWIS, this could not be done as the weight and dimensions of the Lewis meant it was not possible to carry forward an LMG in an attack at speed.

The Bren gun was used in many roles from light support in the Infantry section to a Medium MG role when used with the sustained fire tripod that was issued with every gun.

From August 1944 to the end of the war the British Army continued to receive less and less infantry replacements. To shore up their shrinking squads they tried to increase the firepower of the squad. One of the ways they did this was to increase the number of Bren guns per squad to two.

Realizing the need for additional section-level firepower, the British Army endeavored to issue the Bren in greater numbers, with a stated goal of one Bren to every four private soldiers

The Bren was issued one per Rifle Section, with three Rifle Sections in each platoon. Besides Brens on Carriers, a further three Bren guns were issued to the Admin platoon of the Rifle company. Parachute battalions from 1944 had an extra Bren for each platoon. The 66 man "Assault Troop" of British Commandos had a nominal establishment of 4 Bren guns.

By 1943 Canada was making 60% of all Bren guns.

The Bren was a modified version of a Czechoslovak-designed light machine gun, the ZB vz.26.

By 1943 there were 1,000 Bren guns made each week.



DP facts:

The Ручной пулемёт Дегтярёвa Пехотный (Ruchnoy Pulemyot Degtyaryova Pekhotny) (Degtyaryov hand-held infantry machine gun) or DP was a light machine gun used by the Sovite Union starting in 1928. It fired the 7.62x54mmR cartridge and was cheap and easy to manufacture - early models had fewer than 80 parts and could be built by unskilled labour. The DP was especially able to withstand dirt. In tests it was buried in sand and mud and was still capable of firing more than 500 rounds. The DP's main drawback was its bipod; this part could not withstand much abuse and broke easily. Also, the magazine, which was usually a pan with 47 rounds that fed in from the top, was relatively small and continuous fire for long periods could not be relied on as much as contemporary belt fed weapons, especially the German MG34 and MG42. It took some time to load a new magazine onto the weapon, and each magazine took a much longer time to load with ammunition. However, the DP's lower cyclic rate of fire meant a reduced risk of the barrel overheating. Nicknamed the 'Record player', the Dp28 had a reputation as an effective light support weapon.

The DP (Degtyarev Pechotnyi, or Degtyarev Infantry) light machine gun was one of the first small arms designed after the 1917 in USSR. It was adopted as an standard LMG of Red Army in 1927 and served with distinction until the end of World War 2. It was rugged and reliable weapon, but not withouth certain flaws, so, based on experience gained from battles of WW2, it was slightly modernised in 1943-44 to became DPM. or DP Modernised. One of proposed modifications was replacement of the heavy and uncomfortable flat pan magazine by the belt feed, but due to some resons, this particular improvement was released only in 1946, when a further improved version was adopted by Soviet Army as a RP-46 (Rotnyj Pulemet, 1946, or Company Machine Gun).

The DP was especially able to withstand dirt. In tests, it was buried in sand and mud and was still capable of firing more than 500 rounds without jamming.


MG34 and MG42 facts:

Quantity MG34 manufactured: Heer 354,020, Luftwaffe 348, Kriegsmarine 10,287 and Waffen-SS 587.

Almost every nation copied the MG42, in one form or another, after the war was over.


To get some kind of an idea of the different level of machine gun production for all models Germany produced 674,280. The Allies produced 4,744,484. Roughly 7 to 1.

Good Hunting.

MR