Page 1 of 1
LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:09 pm
by Dili
The question is regarding mostly the machine guns and light machine guns that a Division has to protect division assets like the HQ, artillery and are not usually employed in offensives. Should they be included in the unit?
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:53 pm
by Alfred
Depends on what exactly you are trying to achieve.
Have a read of this thread.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2894251&mpage=1&key=lcu%2Ctoe�
In commenting on setting up the HQ component, which might be something similar to what you have in mind, one of the devs comments might assist you.
Not covered in the above thread is that whatever you put into the TOE has ramifications from a troop load POV in terms of the abstraction. That was very much taken into account by the devs in setting up the "combat" firepower of the devices and you should too for these HQ elements.
Anything device with a firepower above a certain level automatically gets a 1 AV irrespective of where it is located in the unit and whether IRL it usually participated in combat.
Alfred
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:34 pm
by Dili
In this case just to know what is more correct based on game combat resolution. I am not trying to split the unit, just wanting to know if all devices should be included.
Can you get what is the level of firepower that a device gets an assault value? i also have a note in my research files that it needs a load cost of 11.
It was a good point to remember about loading weights.
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:24 am
by el cid again
If you follow Dupuy theory, every weapon counts, even reserve weapons not issued yet!
In game terms, it is a lot of work to insure all units (thousands of them) have all their
weapons.
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:57 am
by HansBolter
Don't support squads also have an Assault Value?
Something on the order of 1 AV for every 10 squads.
I wouldn't think the engine could be configured so that this value only gets used after the real assault squads have been used up.
I don't think we can expect that level of tactical detail in the combat resolutions of a game on this scale.
I don't think we should stress over the support squads adding 1/10th AV to very combat.
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:39 pm
by Alfred
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Don't support squads also have an Assault Value?
Something on the order of 1 AV for every 10 squads.
I wouldn't think the engine could be configured so that this value only gets used after the real assault squads have been used up.
I don't think we can expect that level of tactical detail in the combat resolutions of a game on this scale.
I don't think we should stress over the support squads adding 1/10th AV to very combat.
Not quite.[:)]
Technically, support squads have 0 AV. They usually have a firepower rating of 1 anti-armour and 5 anti-soft. This is not high enough to give them a 1 AV rating. These low firepower ratings mean that in the combat fire phase they can inflict some damage on the enemy but this capability is very limited. The odds are very low that a support squad will defeat a combat squad but the potential does exist. If their anti-armour and anti-soft ratings were 0 they would have zero capability to inflict any damage on the enemy during the fire phase of combat.
The 1/10 rule comes after combat. For the purposes of determining whether a base changes hands or a retreat check is made, any remaining ready support squad is assigned a 1/10 AV value for the purposes of determining whether a base changes hands or whether a retreat results. This is determined after combat and is factored into the adjusted AV.
Alfred
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:46 pm
by Alfred
ORIGINAL: Dili
In this case just to know what is more correct based on game combat resolution. I am not trying to split the unit, just wanting to know if all devices should be included.
Can you get what is the level of firepower that a device gets an assault value? i also have a note in my research files that it needs a load cost of 11.
It was a good point to remember about loading weights.
Post #6 of the linked thread I provided is the particularly germane one to your question.
In that post the dev specifically refers to creating an HQ unit with support squads. Depending on whether you chose option 1 or 2 you would end up ultimately with a separate unit with the HQ support devices you asked about or ultimately with a reconstituted Division with all those HQ support devices within the TOE.
As I said it depends on what exactly you have in mind but in principle there is nothing to stop you having those HQ support devices within the unit TOE. Just remember to take it into account in determining unit weight and firepower.
Alfred
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:42 pm
by US87891
The answer to your question, Mr Dili, is quite simply:
If you are playing stock, with recombinable division units … No.
If you are playing a Babes small scenario or are doing a mod for a small scenario using the Babes paradigm … Yes, up to a point.
Mr Alfred gives many reasons why not, but the easiest answer is that there are already too many other ways to break the land combat model that adding HQ and support squad weapons, in a “game” system that allows initial ‘tagged’ unit recombination and subsequent triplicate breakdown, would make the result imbecile, both practically and philosophically.
The whole thing is about the AE game system combat resolution method.
The AE game system counts noses, regardless of where they are in the hex. HQ and Arty support weapons are treated as though they are in the front line for firepower calculations. This is despite the fact that their .50 cal Ma-Deuces were on AA mounts. Not to say they couldn’t shred some poor gomer, but that’s not what they were for. Certain ‘game engine’ abstractions apply in AE stock.
Matt
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:28 pm
by Dili
I have read the topic you linked Alfred but it didn't much answered my question which is more along the lines of what US87891 is saying and you also touched in post #6 of this topic.
That was probably more a failure of my part and i should have said in first post that was trying to understand the land combat model to check if that was a good idea or not.
Of course there are grey areas since some countries had Division in own units and others had a nice machine gun battalion that had same propose but since was named would be counted as a pure combat unit even if the weapons are distributed everywhere.
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:38 pm
by el cid again
But, as pointed out earlier, the only combat model that actually predicts historical
outcomes for battles in all eras (that of Dupuy and Dupuy) - actually uses the
same concept - 'everything counts' - even unmanned reserve weapons in a formation,
and pistols on the hip of an officer. That is because, IRL, an asset is an asset,
and it can be used if required, I suppose. There may be real merit in the concept.
ORIGINAL: US87891
The answer to your question, Mr Dili, is quite simply:
If you are playing stock, with recombinable division units … No.
If you are playing a Babes small scenario or are doing a mod for a small scenario using the Babes paradigm … Yes, up to a point.
Mr Alfred gives many reasons why not, but the easiest answer is that there are already too many other ways to break the land combat model that adding HQ and support squad weapons, in a “game” system that allows initial ‘tagged’ unit recombination and subsequent triplicate breakdown, would make the result imbecile, both practically and philosophically.
The whole thing is about the AE game system combat resolution method.
The AE game system counts noses, regardless of where they are in the hex. HQ and Arty support weapons are treated as though they are in the front line for firepower calculations. This is despite the fact that their .50 cal Ma-Deuces were on AA mounts. Not to say they couldn’t shred some poor gomer, but that’s not what they were for. Certain ‘game engine’ abstractions apply in AE stock.
Matt
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:37 pm
by US87891
ORIGINAL: Dili
In this case just to know what is more correct based on game combat resolution. I am not trying to split the unit, just wanting to know if all devices should be included.
Can you get what is the level of firepower that a device gets an assault value? i also have a note in my research files that it needs a load cost of 11.
I think I understand more of the question now.
Assault value does not depend on load cost. The assault value calculation looks only for “types” of devices in an LCU’s composition. It applies only to Type-22 = AFV, Type-23 = Squad, Type-24 = Engineer. Nothing else qualifies for having an assault value.
Even if a device qualifies, by being type 22, 23 or 24, it must also have an Anti-Soft of 11 or greater in order to add to the count.
The TO&Es for the LCUs were carefully crafted to include weapons in the various combat elements. Since an MG battalion was an infantry combat element its content should be included. Having a separate MG Bn for division elements that can recombine and subsequently split into thirds is not that big an issue since MG Bns were often split up and their companies reassigned at brigade level. This does not do undue violence to the combat system.
Ancillary, infantry type, weapons at non-combat or non-front-line echelons were purposely excluded. This is because they do not fit within the combat algorithm paradigm and would skew it unmercifully. These are localized defensive weapons, like the literally 100 or more .50 cal MGs provided to a US arty unit as AA defense. Wrapping them up into an assault value gives results that are, indeed, imbecile.
Additionally, if one were to do this for one LCU, or nation, one must do it for all. Every single one; for everybody, everywhere. Otherwise it’s nothing but inculcating and instantiating a personal cheat.
I would ask you to consider the various combat modes and think about the implications of active, reserve, rest. Also think about assault vs bombardment. Wouldn’t you like to have the arty doing bombardment rather than assaulting (???) Arty doesn’t assault so why expose them to the game algorithm loss function. Arty bombards, infantry combat elements assault, HQs and service units duck and cover, no matter what level of infantry weapons they might have available in the establishment. The game algorithm works very well within certain limits. If one understands those limits, the game plays much like a MAP-3 simulation.
Matt
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:58 pm
by US87891
ORIGINAL: el cid again
But, as pointed out earlier, the only combat model that actually predicts historical
outcomes for battles in all eras (that of Dupuy and Dupuy) - actually uses the
same concept - 'everything counts' - even unmanned reserve weapons in a formation,
and pistols on the hip of an officer. That is because, IRL, an asset is an asset,
and it can be used if required, I suppose. There may be real merit in the concept.
Bull.
Dupuy never said that. You have been reading internet wargamer interpretations.
I know Col. Trevor DuPuy very well. We have worked together on several ACM projects where he was mentor and I was implementor. He would be astonished at your conclusions.
ok, for what it's worth:
Mathias Norton, Lt. Col. Infantry, USA (Ret)
Matt
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:32 am
by Dili
ORIGINAL: US87891
ORIGINAL: Dili
In this case just to know what is more correct based on game combat resolution. I am not trying to split the unit, just wanting to know if all devices should be included.
Can you get what is the level of firepower that a device gets an assault value? i also have a note in my research files that it needs a load cost of 11.
I think I understand more of the question now.
Assault value does not depend on load cost. The assault value calculation looks only for “types” of devices in an LCU’s composition. It applies only to Type-22 = AFV, Type-23 = Squad, Type-24 = Engineer. Nothing else qualifies for having an assault value.
Even if a device qualifies, by being type 22, 23 or 24, it must also have an Anti-Soft of 11 or greater in order to add to the count.
The TO&Es for the LCUs were carefully crafted to include weapons in the various combat elements. Since an MG battalion was an infantry combat element its content should be included. Having a separate MG Bn for division elements that can recombine and subsequently split into thirds is not that big an issue since MG Bns were often split up and their companies reassigned at brigade level. This does not do undue violence to the combat system.
Ancillary, infantry type, weapons at non-combat or non-front-line echelons were purposely excluded. This is because they do not fit within the combat algorithm paradigm and would skew it unmercifully. These are localized defensive weapons, like the literally 100 or more .50 cal MGs provided to a US arty unit as AA defense. Wrapping them up into an assault value gives results that are, indeed, imbecile.
Additionally, if one were to do this for one LCU, or nation, one must do it for all. Every single one; for everybody, everywhere. Otherwise it’s nothing but inculcating and instantiating a personal cheat.
I would ask you to consider the various combat modes and think about the implications of active, reserve, rest. Also think about assault vs bombardment. Wouldn’t you like to have the arty doing bombardment rather than assaulting (???) Arty doesn’t assault so why expose them to the game algorithm loss function. Arty bombards, infantry combat elements assault, HQs and service units duck and cover, no matter what level of infantry weapons they might have available in the establishment. The game algorithm works very well within certain limits. If one understands those limits, the game plays much like a MAP-3 simulation.
Matt
Thanks. Are you sure it is AV 11? i have rechecked a topic where engineers are discussed and says 10.
The problem is precisely knowing the game limits and the assumptions on the combat resolution model. For example the defense against assault might account by default for all those machine guns for protection that an artillery regiment, HQ, etc has but are not employed for attack.Or it might not.
If not machine guns squads to work well within the model only if they don't have AV and obviously if it isn't an exaggerated number of squads.
I believe that the land combat resolution have this four phases at least. All comments are notes that i have took.
Bombardment
Only device "army weapon" with at least 3 range and 5 soft damage can bombard, Land Naval guns and DP with less than 15Kyds range may not fire.
AA guns should not have more than 4 anti-soft to not be used in Bombardment.
Pre assault
Seems any units that didn't bombard can fire in this phase. Including unfortunately those machine guns.
Assault
only to Type-22 = AFV, Type-23 = Squad, Type-24 = Engineer. With more than 10?11 anti soft value.
Defense phase.
Everyone can fire.
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:47 pm
by el cid again
Assault value is also somewhat deceptive as an indicator. Several factors
matter - and it varies with the unit and type of combat which. Regard it
as a crude indicator rather than as a precise one.
RE: LCU's should we put all weapons on?
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:49 pm
by el cid again
He "said it" in the way the model actually works. Read his book. You include all weapons
and it is explicit.
ORIGINAL: US87891
ORIGINAL: el cid again
But, as pointed out earlier, the only combat model that actually predicts historical
outcomes for battles in all eras (that of Dupuy and Dupuy) - actually uses the
same concept - 'everything counts' - even unmanned reserve weapons in a formation,
and pistols on the hip of an officer. That is because, IRL, an asset is an asset,
and it can be used if required, I suppose. There may be real merit in the concept.
Bull.
Dupuy never said that. You have been reading internet wargamer interpretations.
I know Col. Trevor DuPuy very well. We have worked together on several ACM projects where he was mentor and I was implementor. He would be astonished at your conclusions.
ok, for what it's worth:
Mathias Norton, Lt. Col. Infantry, USA (Ret)
Matt