Matrix Games Forums

Morale and experience values can sort the veterans from the rookies but in the final analysis aren't all men otherwise created equal until you give some of them machine guns and others rifles? So I did a hasty little chart giving attack values for a few squads which I could find reasonably detailed compositions for. For anti-soft value I counted every light machine gun as a "4", every automatic rifle (BAR) or submachine gun a "3", every semi-sutomatic rifle a "2" and every bolt rifle a "1". I counted up the values based on how many of each weapon a standard squad supposedly carried and came up with the "soft attack" value for the squad. For "hard attack" value I simply counted every man in the squad as a "1" and every grenade launcher as a "3".

At bottom is what I came up with. The values in the red columns are what the values are in stock AE.

So my question is "why not"? Why wouldn't a 17 man squad have a bit better anti-tank value than a 12 man squad? This isn't including heavy weapons the larger parent unit might possess. This is just including what the individual squads typically had.

Thoughts?

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
So my question is "why not"? Why wouldn't a 17 man squad have a bit better anti-tank value than a 12 man squad? This isn't including heavy weapons the larger parent unit might possess. This is just including what the individual squads typically had.

Thoughts?

Because the game doesn't function that way, Gary. A squad is weaponized. A squad could have a Boys ATR attached. A Boys can Pen (Anti-armor) 15. What you are saying is just add 100 men with 100 Boys and you can blow away King Tigers with anti-armor of 1500. Nope! the squad is weaponized. Weapons are pegged at the individual device level or the individual element level when they are included in the squad formation algorithm. Boys are pegged at 15. It anti-armors at 15 because its weapon penetrates 15. Give it more weapons, and it still only penetrates 15.

The use and utility of anti-armor is a function of the code, so you won't hear how it's actually done [;)] But you can abstract the code abstraction and say that perhaps if you have 10 squads with anti-armor of 15 facing a unit with 10 T94/97 Tankettes ot T95 Lt tanks with armor of 12, you get 10 bites at 10 apples (not each, but 10 bites total) with "up to" +3 on the whack-a-mole scale. Of course, this is not how it's done, so please, folks, don't whine at Michaelm if things don't happen according to your calculations.

There actually is a "random" that allows an anti-armor of 15 (actually any anti-armor over 1) a shot at a King Tiger; the "shot" is very, very small, and it does take # of squads and "raw" anti-armor into account, but it exists.

Sorry Gary, your system simply will not work within the game parameters. They will function, they will load and data will be used, but your combat results will be so utterly skewed as to be incomprehensible.

And you clearly can’t just look at individual squad weapons to define a squad. You need to go up to Company level and add all the rifles, BARs, LMGs, 40mm knee mortars, 2”/60mm mortars (all “infantry weapons”) together and THEN decide how to subdivide the aggregate into “GAME EQUIVALENT” squads.

FYI, if you have a division with 1000 squads, each having 2 men armed with a water pistol, that division will AV at 1000. If you have a division with 100 squads, each having 20 men armed with LMGs, that division will AV at 100. In the game AV system, the 2000 water pistol boys will attack at 10:1 and will whack the 2000 LMG boys 80% of the time.

So when you define the size and firepower of an equivalent squad, you need to “feed forward” to what it’s battalion/regiment/divisional size will be (its AV value) and how that compares (on an AV, and firepower basis) to its opponents.

It’s not hard, but it requires discipline and a knowledge of how you want the final LCUs to react in the firepower and AV phases of the game engine.

Thanks. I see what you are saying. Scratch that plan.

So squad AT value would be based on the armor penetration of the squad's main AT weapon I take it?

Also what about "soft attack" value. Is it based on some sort of factor of the main squad LMG? Or is it based on the number of weapons and of what type the squad possesses?

As always thank you for your guidance on these matters.

EDIT: Woops, just saw your second post. I'll look at it closer before I ask anything more about "soft attack". Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Thanks. I see what you are saying. Scratch that plan.

So squad AT value would be based on the armor penetration of the squad's main AT weapon I take it?

Also what about "soft attack" value. Is it based on some sort of factor of the main squad LMG? Or is it based on the number of weapons and of what type the squad possesses?

As always thank you for your guidance on these matters.

EDIT: Woops, just saw your second post. I'll look at it closer before I ask anything more about "soft attack". Thanks.

Ok, so Companies were made up of a ton of different squads and teams over the years. Another reason to aggregate.

FX, a not typical, but deployed in places, 1941 US Inf company had 4 platoons, each comprised of 3 rifle squads (12 men each) and a BAR squad (8 men), along with Pltn HQ. The rifle squads had rifles (Springfields, and then maybe Garrands). The BAR squad had 2 BARs and a mix of rifles.

So a rifle platoon would have 2 BARs and 42 rifles (3 x 12 + 6), but not quite. Your BAR squad had 2 gunners, 2 assistant gunners, 2 ammo bearers, an NCO and a Lance assistant with rifles. Given that marginal people on the sharp end are abstracted into the Support requirements, you end up with 38 rifles (3 x 12 + 2) and 2 BARs.

Then the Company had 3 60mm mortar teams (technically 19 troops total, but realistically 12 – a mortarman and 3 security rifles. The rest assist or hump ammo and are Support.

Then the Company had 2 M1919 LMG teams (technically 14 troops total, but realistically 8 – a gunner and 3 security rifles. The rest assist or hump ammo and are Support.

So add it up. A Company gets 129 [3x(36 + 2) + 9 + 6] rifles; 6 BARs; 3 60mm mortars; 2 M1919 LMGs. So that’s 140 guys and whatever the weap math shows for firepower. Assume, for grins, that firepower totals out to 152 (with Springfields). Now you have a choice. You can have 14 squads (of 4 different types; 9 rifle, 3 BAR, 1 mortar, 1 LMG) in a Company, or aggregate and define equivalent squads.

So 9 squads with 15/16 men and 17 firepower?
Or 10 squads with 14 men, and 15 firepower?

That’s why the Japanese Company has 3 platoons, each with 3 squads having 1 LMG and 12 rifles and 1 squad having 3 GDs and 9 rifles, totaling out to 156 troops and 180 firepower, which ends up being a GAME EQUIVALENT of 9 Inf squad of 17 men and 20 firepower per infantry company.

A Japanese Bn has 4 inf coys, plus support. US Bns have 3 inf coys plus support. Brits have 4 inf coys plus support. This 4:3 (or 1:1) ratio is extremely important in game terms. When the US gets Garrands and BARs in each squad, the algorithm shows up well. The Japanese will shoot at the US at approx. 3:4 and lose proportionally more devices. The survivors AV at somewhat less than 4:3, but perhaps still at a slight advantage. Same with the Brits, except the starting AV is 1:1, but the Brit firepower is less so the Japanese won’t lose proportionally more devices and when AV time comes, it’s still 1:1.

Number of squads in a unit, firepower of a unit, number of men in a squad (load costs for divisions) are all, and each, highly important. Any changes to one MUST require judicious review and a change to each and every unit of each and every opposing nation where warranted.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Thanks. I see what you are saying. Scratch that plan.

So squad AT value would be based on the armor penetration of the squad's main AT weapon I take it?

Yes. Don't forget it's abstracted and based on the raw anti-armor vs raw armor. So the "random" factor makes it easier for a squad (with a-a 5 or 15) to defeat armor of 25 or 30 than armor of 150. It abstractly takes into account a fanatical Yoshi with explosives strapped to his body, an exceptionally brave Ushio with an armful of Molotov cocktails, and Corporal Sushi with a stickey bomb.

Also what about "soft attack" value. Is it based on some sort of factor of the main squad LMG? Or is it based on the number of weapons and of what type the squad possesses?

No. It's based on the actual individual infantry weapons found in a typical, national infantry company. Infantry weapons are; bolt rifles, auto load rifles, BARs, mag LMGs, belt LMGs, mag MMGs, belt MMGs, water MMGs, 40mm GDs, 2" mortars, 60mm mortars.

The numerics, as applied to the game, are mine, but the raw data comes from weapon analysis results by the 2nd Directorate of the GRU done in 1952. It details the engagement envelope within which weapon effectiveness is defined and provides some very useful charts of the tactical engagement schema. The envelope was analysed at 500/200/100 metres.

Notably, the GRU concluded that SMGs were useless outside 50 meters and, drawing on their report of 1946, recommended SMGs be withdrawn from Soviet Army service. Which was done. The GRU considered their best SMG as having .7 the effectiveness of a Simonov self-loading rifle over the envelope. Even more notably, the GRU considered the US M1/M2 carbine an extremely effective weapon, having .9(+) the effectiveness characteristics of a Simonov/Garrand. Indeed, its specific utility was used by the 2nd Directorate to spur and support the development of the AK series (which was not a Nazi knockoff, thank you very much). So carbines and SMGs are treated like s-l rifles in the game algorithm. Weenie little Squad Leader people won't like it, but that's how it is.

The individual weapon numerics themselves are obscure. I posted them openly once and got whacked for it. Some people think they have it figured out, but they don't, really. AndyMac and Kereguelen have the weap and squad definitions. They use them for the most part. I have given my documentation to a few other modders who I consider serious. For obvious reasons, I won't do it openly, and certainly don't think it's warranted for "fantasy" opportunities.

If you must, simply must, then send me some pms and convince me. I'm willing to help but can't do so for things on the outer limits.

JWE

Agree 100% with everything Symon said - this balance was one of the toughest things to get right in the whole process

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


So my question is "why not"? Why wouldn't a 17 man squad have a bit better anti-tank value than a 12 man squad? This isn't including heavy weapons the larger parent unit might possess. This is just including what the individual squads typically had.

Thoughts?

I think the anti-tank value of a squad should be related to the armor penetration value of any AT weapon in the squad. IF there are none per se, you can use the armor penetration of their infantry weapons. I use a very similar point system to yours for SOFT values (1 for rifle, 2 for semi automatic rifle, 3 for LMG, 4 for MMG, 5 or some 6 for an HMG) - but the ANTI ARMOR value is based on penetration in mm: the worst case is 5 for a 30 M1 Carbine and other low energy firearms, 7-9 for most rifles and LMG and MMG, and 10-15 for various kinds of HMG. This is somewhat hard to gage because certain kinds of weapons are not modeled at all - we give nothing for special anti-tank grenades of IJA for example.

DUDE!
German Infantry? Show us RAMCKE! We want to see those FG 42 in action!

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

USMC 1943, had probably one GL for every BAR, German 1943 squad should have 2 SMGs, and probably more GLs (it had 3 late-war), and Panzerfaust was squad weapon. Every soldier could took it, it was not delivered from upper command, as Bazooka, or Panzerschreck.

I would have to find my old notes, but it went somewhere like this:
Rifle 0.5 point, semi-automatic rifle 1, SMG 2-3
LMG 9 (Device 721), but this heavily modified by ammo delivery, and cooling. BAR 6, GD 3 (+1 for every step in caliber). Additional modification for Rifle Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, Flamethrowers etc.
There is also problem with Hard Attack (currently it seems to be penetration based on percentage of Personal AT launcher in squad, because there was not enough in higher HQ, and you get half of full penetration, but you already know that), if you do it by-person-basis, different armies used different equipment. US had NO AT hand-grenade (only one fired from Rifle). Japan had stick-mines, but they had NO shaped-charge technology early, so even their rifle fired AT grenades had poor penetration.

The problem with introducing your own values, is that then you have also change every tank, and vehicle. In theory you also should change statistics for aircraft, and ship weapons, but they are already completely inconsistent (Device 1112 US HMG Section have 40 Soft Attack, while Device 161 .50 Browning MG for aircraft have 3 - well you can assume, that time of firing for strafing aircraft is pretty short, but for ship weapon 1582 .5in Browning M2 MG, which should have no problem engaging enemy infantry for long time, Anti-Soft value is whooping 1 - let me write in in words - ONE, same as one semi-automatic rifleman)

If you really want to flip whole system, and line it with how game works (first firefight, then assault), you would have probably to define some firing teams, build around light fast-firing devices. SMG for example have too short range, to be used during firefight phase, but it would be extremely useful during H2H combat, so 0 for Anti-Soft, but it should generate AV. BAR is useful in both phases, but HMG is too heavy to quickly employ it in close combat (so good Anti-Soft, but no contribution for assault).