The Infantry

Matrix Games Forums

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Matrix Games / Slitherine / AGEOD are recruiting AGAIN!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Infantry

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> The Infantry

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Infantry - 8/5/2012 3:09:44 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

This topic needs it's own thread. I've brought one of my posts in here to start the discussions.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Post #: 1

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 3:10:01 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Well, there you have it. You have just joined those of us that think the infantry system needs to be considerably tweaked.

MR,

I don't think the system needs to be considerably tweaked. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm actually quite impressed with the way suppression appears to be handled and I believe suppression to be the heart of any realistic infantry combat model. Having just used area fire to kill a Sov SMG squad cowering in its foxholes however (Boot Camp 5), I am tending to think that casualties might be awarded a little too readily. With two MG-42s hosing it down, I'd expect such a squad to be well and truly pinned to the bottom of its scrapes but it seems a bit of an ask for even German machine-guns to reach out and touch someone through several metres of earth. Unless of course the Sovs broke and took the hits as they stood up to run away.

IMO, PC: O's infantry model doesn't need a lot of tweaking although, yes, it does need some and doubtless everybody has their own views on what that should be. As an old grunt, I tend to look at command and control and soft effects before considering other stuff as these, again IMO, are tactical wargame aspects most often overlooked or incorrectly modelled.

And it's really hard to model command and control if you don't model commanders and controllers

Cheers,

Andy

When I say that the infantry combat system in PC needs work. I mean the entire system. Not just one thing. There are some major issues with the infantry combat system in the game; from my point of view.

First and foremost, every round of an AFV is tracked, and yet an infantry squad has an unlimited supply of handgrenades. The infantry's most potent weapon. The discussion of just how detailed to make the infantry has gone through several rounds.

IMO, the infantry model should be as detailed as the armor model. I've heard all the arguments against making it that way, but for my money if you want the PC series to really be a classic it will do that by the different models, armor/infanty/artillery/air all getting the same attention to detail.

For me that means:

* A chain of command that works. Leaders are on the field so that you can put them in the places you need them. To more than likely get them killed but at least they will be in the game and doing their job. As in real life.

At the moment leaders can call for artillery. That includes any and all leaders. So, if you make a single sniper platoon, he is a leader. Which means he can call for artillery. There should be restrictions on who can call for artillery and there should be FO's in the game.

* Ammunition modeling. Specifically hand grenades. Squads didn't carry unlimited numbers of grenades like they do in PCO at the moment. They carried as many as possible but that is a finite number. When a squad or platoon runs out of grenades it's effectiveness is extremely limited. Not so in PCO at the moment.

* Buildings are not fortresses nor are they phone booths. At the moment buildings are a problem for infantry combat. They are much better than they were when we started but they still have a long way to go.
- Have to leave from the exact same spot you enter them.
- They provide the same type of issue that the ATG's do. They need to have a hard and soft target aspect. What are effects of an MG firing at a building vs a tank cannon? The differences in tank cannon size makes what kind of difference to the building?
- Buildings are not phone booths. You can normally get 20 men inside a single room if comfort is not an issue. PCO buildings have specific stacking limits. If the building is 'full' you can't assault inside.
- Destructible terrain is another entirely different issue that would have an effect on infantry combat.

* The effects of fear aren't modeled as well as they could be. Routing needs adjustment, where the unit will route and when it will rally needs tweaking. What about the units that go berserk, cower, become heroic and make that last stand. At the moment that is determined by SOP to a great extent. You decide how a unit will react in combat almost exclusively. Not entirely but the SOP is too dominant at times.

I'm not saying the infantry combat model doesn't work at all. I'm saying if we brought it to the same level as the armored combat model this would be a whole different game. Our armor model takes armored combat down to the nth degree, if that same attention to detail were to be applied to the infantry combat system it, IMO, would improve this game dramatically.

I'm glad what we currently have works for you. We worked long and hard on the improvements that are in the game at this point. It was always intended that the next game in the series would focus on improvements to the infantry combat system.

There are those on the team that don't agree with my views of where the series should go in the future. Which is okay, we all get a say.

Just my $.02 worth on the infantry model.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/5/2012 3:25:22 PM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 2

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 3:21:00 PM

Mobius

Posts: 8739
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online

A point of reference...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 3

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 3:31:04 PM

junk2drive

Posts: 12684
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: online

PC was/is designed to be played as the Platoon leader and not the Squad leader as in other games. That is why a lot of detail is abstracted, a real commander would not know what each squad is doing in detail after giving them orders. This is not because Koios could not figure out how to put the detail in. Whether or not this makes for a popular choice amongst gamers is another debate.

Some people want a third person shooter in real time. Some want a board game in 3D. Some want to control each soldier and some can't be bothered.

Steel Panthers and it's variants are repeatedly brought up in forum discussions as one of the greatest games of all time. I agree. I've been looking for a 3D replacement for years. Once I got use to WEGO with CM and PC, I find it hard to play IGOUGO. Considering that the name Steel Panthers is about tanks, the game actually is great at infantry and combined arms.

So the question becomes, does the future of PC become a clone of CMx2, or Achtung Panzer, or Steel Panthers, or Panther games Command Ops, or ?

We could make the greatest game ever that flops because it has gameplay that no one else wants. Or just copy what sells well.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 4

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 3:40:50 PM

Mobius

Posts: 8739
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online

I forgot to add.
Question:
When is an actual event merely anecdotal?
A: When it doesn�t support a game design.
Question:
When is an actual event historical evidence?
A: When it does.

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 5

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 4:02:04 PM

Mobius

Posts: 8739
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online

Now, MR makes a good point about the grenade count. But, to be true to the abstract nature caused by FOW it should be handled with finesse and not brute force counting. Maybe, they run out randomly after a number of turns of fire like things in PCK used to run out of ammo. I don�t know about re-supply then. You get in the realm of a resource hunting game. Or, ASL where your best item is a wheel barrow so you can carry around the booty your squads collect. (Though retaining treasure from one campaign game to the next just might make the game more popular.)

< Message edited by Mobius -- 8/5/2012 4:04:10 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 6

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 5:38:37 PM

KEYSTONE07950

Posts: 125
Joined: 12/17/2006
Status: offline

My understanding is that hand grenades were used in close combat. Why not have a random chance of loosing hand grenades every time a unit fires on an enemy within 100 meters?

Also, I think that command control is the singe most important element in tactical combat games. I strongly advocate for a formal command hierarchy for each side: battalion command group to company command group to platoon command.

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 7

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 9:24:40 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Now, MR makes a good point about the grenade count. But, to be true to the abstract nature caused by FOW it should be handled with finesse and not brute force counting. Maybe, they run out randomly after a number of turns of fire like things in PCK used to run out of ammo. I don�t know about re-supply then. You get in the realm of a resource hunting game. Or, ASL where your best item is a wheel barrow so you can carry around the booty your squads collect. (Though retaining treasure from one campaign game to the next just might make the game more popular.)

If this is so we need to go back to tanks having random factors of shells and not do exact count on them. PCO only goes abstract when the infantry are concerned. I see no reason to do that.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 8

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 10:16:33 PM

Andy Brown

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Now, MR makes a good point about the grenade count. But, to be true to the abstract nature caused by FOW it should be handled with finesse and not brute force counting. Maybe, they run out randomly after a number of turns of fire like things in PCK used to run out of ammo.

Obviously, any adjustments need to be made in light of existing data structures. I notice that some units have three different types of ammo. I notice that inf squads do have separate smoke grenades. If it's simply a matter of adding ammo type grenades to rifle squads, why are we still talking about it?

Of course, if it's not, if grenades are not expended like ammunition but have their use factored into separate close assault routines, then understandably all bets are off. As one of you guys says somewhere else, you have been working on this for two years ...

Personally, ammo resupply would not be a high a priority for me. Once you start on it, you have to consider mechanisms for redistributing it between units, transporting it in vehicles, etc, etc. Some good scenarios could be built around the problems of ammo conservation but, IMO, there are more important aspects of any tactical infantry game that need to be "done right" before you get round to looking at running short of ammo.

I do think 300 volleys or bursts of small arms fire is too much for an infantry squad, though. I figure, say, 100 rounds per man for the riflemen and a maximum of 1000 rounds of link for a German MG firing 5 -10 round bursts, 100 would be a more appropriate figure, maybe 120 tops. How easy is this to change? Is it something scenario designers have access to?

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Brown -- 8/5/2012 10:18:28 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 9

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 11:04:49 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

We are, in fact, talking about adding grenades as expendable ammunition.

The ammunition for infantry is another issue. I used to think it was too high but then when you look at the actual time elapsed it doesn't seem too bad. Ammunition, for both vehicles and infantry is set per scenario by the designer.

Ammo resupply is not high on my list either. But when tanks run short of ammunition I make allowances for that. When infantry run short of ammunition or won't close assault at full strength because they are low on grenades I'd like to know that too. I may just send a different unit to fulfill that mission.

That's what this is all about. Sending the best lead, equipped and motivated unit to get the job done.

Once you start redoing any of the infantry combat model it all gets moved out of alignment. As you pointed out with ammunition expenditure. That's why it was scheduled for the next game, so that it could be looked at in depth.

I was the last member of the team added and I got involved with PCO in March 2008. So yes, we've been at this awhile now.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/5/2012 11:20:25 PM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Andy Brown)

Post #: 10

RE: The Infantry - 8/5/2012 11:27:33 PM

Mobius

Posts: 8739
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
Of course, if it's not, if grenades are not expended like ammunition but have their use factored into separate close assault routines, then understandably all bets are off. As one of you guys says somewhere else, you have been working on this for two

I noticed this in an earlier post. When comparing MG34 and MG42 firepower it is higher than other MMG and HMGs. Higher because they are firing more bullets. So to be fair these should have their ammo reduced in proportion to their higher firepower.

In the WO I posted it stated the effective ROF of the Bren was 120 rpm. So every rifleman had to carry ammo for himself and for the Bren. But if the actual squad strength is 6 riflemen instead of the official OOB of 9 men the tota; ammo count would be less. They probably aren't getting 120 rpm for very long. Luckily we aren't dealing with Uk forces right now.

< Message edited by Mobius -- 8/5/2012 11:32:01 PM >

(in reply to Andy Brown)

Post #: 11

RE: The Infantry - 8/6/2012 3:55:38 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

The British squads will be interesting. As the war stretched out there were manpower shortages in the infantry units. They tried to increase firepower to make up for that. By the end of the war each British squad had not one but two Brens. That will be interesting to model.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 12

RE: The Infantry - 8/8/2012 3:22:31 AM

Michael Dorosh

Posts: 377
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

We are, in fact, talking about adding grenades as expendable ammunition.

The ammunition for infantry is another issue. I used to think it was too high but then when you look at the actual time elapsed it doesn't seem too bad. Ammunition, for both vehicles and infantry is set per scenario by the designer.

Ammo resupply is not high on my list either. But when tanks run short of ammunition I make allowances for that. When infantry run short of ammunition or won't close assault at full strength because they are low on grenades I'd like to know that too. I may just send a different unit to fulfill that mission.

That's what this is all about. Sending the best lead, equipped and motivated unit to get the job done.

Once you start redoing any of the infantry combat model it all gets moved out of alignment. As you pointed out with ammunition expenditure. That's why it was scheduled for the next game, so that it could be looked at in depth.

I was the last member of the team added and I got involved with PCO in March 2008. So yes, we've been at this awhile now.

Good Hunting.

MR

Why on earth would you want to have the necessity of micromanaging infantry squads, to the point of counting hand grenades?

Completely the wrong way to go.

If the player is the company commander - is it realistic to picture a company commander getting on the radio and deferring a command to his platoons until they can hand count the grenades in their pouches?

Or is it better to just abstract it all into "close combat" factors for close assault/grenades/hand-to-hand combat, all of which would be happening simultaneously at ranges within 50 metres anyway? I would think the latter.

_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 13

RE: The Infantry - 8/8/2012 3:38:35 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

Not the point MD.

The point is that an infantry squad or platoon only has so many grenades. If you have a platoon that is short of grenades would send them to assault the strongpoint or one that's not short?

Those are very much decisions a company commander would make, with information he very much better know. If you have a company commander that doesn't know the ammunition situation of his units he is getting ready to first get a bunch of men killed and then, if he survives, relieved of command.

The exact same reason you know how many rounds a tank platoon has. Why worry about their ammo load outs either? So you can make intelligent decisions on who to send to do what task.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/8/2012 3:39:34 AM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Michael Dorosh)

Post #: 14

RE: The Infantry - 8/8/2012 3:46:38 AM

Michael Dorosh

Posts: 377
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Not the point MD.

The point is that an infantry squad or platoon only has so many grenades. If you have a platoon that is short of grenades would send them to assault the strongpoint or one that's not short?

Those are very much decisions a company commander would make, with information he very much better know. If you have a company commander that doesn't know the ammunition situation of his units he is getting ready to first get a bunch of men killed and then, if he survives, relieved of command.

The exact same reason you know how many rounds a tank platoon has. Why worry about their ammo load outs either? So you can make intelligent decisions on who to send to do what task.

Good Hunting.

MR

No way. The platoon commanders might do ammo checks and even redistribute some, but all other things being equal, I can't see a company commander deploying units based on the strength of how many hand grenades they have. Number of men, "natural fighters", what terrain they occupy, but a count of their grenades would have to be way down the list. Come to that, why not just get the CQMS to bring up more?

More importantly, in game terms, it's a layer of trivia that's just going to bog the game down. Folding it into the firepower rating like other games at this scale is wholly appropriate.

_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 15

RE: The Infantry - 8/8/2012 7:00:34 AM

Andy Brown

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline

MD, MR,

I would agree with MD except that the PC: O system does account for just about every other ammunition type. Sure, at the squad level, it does it in an abstract way, by counting squad "bursts" or "volleys" instead of individual rounds of ammo, but it does do it and that enables the player to include squad ammo states in troop tasking decisions.

To be consistent with this model, grenade "volleys" should also be included. Smoke grenade volleys are; it therefore seems illogical that HE grenades volleys aren't (The amount of smoke generated by a PC: O squad CBE would, IMO, require more than one "smoke grenade" to produce).

Grenades are a fundamental component of the aspect of battle that wargames represent as "close assault". A close assault made when a squad possesses a full complement of grenades is likely to be more effective that one made without. It makes sense to track them because a squad should only be capable of a finite number of more effective, grenade assisted close assaults. When the grenades run out, squad close range capability is degraded. This is something the player commander needs to consider.

(Of course, if you start going in this direction, you probably need to start modelling AT grenades/sticky bombs/grenade clusters as well, for similar reasons).

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Brown -- 8/8/2012 7:01:59 AM >

(in reply to Michael Dorosh)

Post #: 16

RE: The Infantry - 8/8/2012 1:46:46 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

So, MD, you wouldn't want the defender to have used up their grenades and reduce their defense because of that? They should always be at full defensive strength as well? This isn't just an offensive issue.

Ah yes, the QM can just bring me more. Except in the hour or so our battles cover there is no QM showing up just yet. The time frame makes that process prohibitive or no tank would ever run out of ammo in a game either.

Curious to the answer, would you send a platoon short of grenades/ammunition to attack the strongpoint?

As has been discussed by the team, and here, there are considerations to infantry combat and how that model works.

It's not there yet.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/8/2012 1:50:55 PM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Andy Brown)

Post #: 17

RE: The Infantry - 8/8/2012 2:43:47 PM

Mobius

Posts: 8739
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
Number of men, "natural fighters", what terrain they occupy, but a count of their grenades would have to be way down the list. Come to that, why not just get the CQMS to bring up more?

Now, there's an idea. One set of miniatures rules has something called 'big men' which are guys you can trust to carry out the fight. Not necessarily the leader but natural fighters. I wonder how this could be incorporated?

(in reply to Michael Dorosh)

Post #: 18

RE: The Infantry - 8/9/2012 3:33:39 AM

Ratzki

Posts: 315
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline

I don't think that the grenade count is an important issue. When I play, all I want to know is if the squad has a chance at killing the enemy tank or whatever. Whether they use 20 grenades or stuff a potato in the tailpipe is of little importance. I do not want to move a squad across the map and later find that id does not have any weapons to perform the task that I set because they threw a couple grenades along the way and I forgot to look at the count. I would like to think that the commanding officers would make sure that the squad has enough weapons to do the job and then some. Keeping it abstract works for me.

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 19

RE: The Infantry - 8/12/2012 5:01:31 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

This discussion seems to be drifting.

The armor combat model for this game tracks everything. All levels of ammo. Then it tells you when you are running low.

That's what I want to see with the infantry combat model.

That's all I want to see from the infantry combat model.

I want the same attention to detail for all the combat models in the game. I want to simulate infantry combat to the same level we now simulate armored combat. Nothing more, and nothing less. The infantry combat model is far from being there at the moment.

What you do with that as a gamer is totally up to you.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Ratzki)

Post #: 20

RE: The Infantry - 8/12/2012 5:13:36 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10386
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

I spent more than 2 years sitting beside a Battalion Commander. I can assure you they know the ammunition conditions of the companies in their battalions.

You think they will have a unit run out of ammunition before they know it? I can tell you from personal experience that they won't. They don't know when every bullet if fired. Nor do they care the distribution process. But the three things they know about every company are the physical state of the unit (how tired they are), how much food (fuel) they've got - the last time they ate or were fueled up, and how much ammunition they have. If any one of the three of those drops below an acceptable level, measures are taken to correct it, immediately.

Grenades are an infantry's most potent weapon. If you are going to count bullets, bursts, then it only makes sense to track their most potent weapons system as well. Again, if you don't care ignore the prompts that you are getting low.

Very simple.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/12/2012 5:16:17 AM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 21

RE: The Infantry - 8/15/2012 2:41:50 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

There are several misconceptions going on here but I think I will just address the basic one.

In the scale and time limits of this game, the armored units are operating without resupply. That is, 'what they got on them is what they can use'. It is extremely rare that ammunition would be passed out or shared between AFV on the FEBA.

Infantry units are different in that they are not discrete 'vehicles'. Infantry companies are more like large organisms. They can share and even carry ammunition for weapons they do not use. In defensive positions, weapons like grenades can be stored at points along a line so that they can be 'fall-backed-on'. In other words, infantry are not individual weapons carriers.

I would like to see infantry capabilities modeled better but I don't need to know every piece of minutia in that message window.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 22

RE: The Infantry - 8/15/2012 3:42:35 AM

spellir74

Posts: 1983
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

There are several misconceptions going on here but I think I will just address the basic one.

In the scale and time limits of this game, the armored units are operating without resupply. That is, 'what they got on them is what they can use'. It is extremely rare that ammunition would be passed out or shared between AFV on the FEBA.

Infantry units are different in that they are not discrete 'vehicles'. Infantry companies are more like large organisms. They can share and even carry ammunition for weapons they do not use. In defensive positions, weapons like grenades can be stored at points along a line so that they can be 'fall-backed-on'. In other words, infantry are not individual weapons carriers.

I would like to see infantry capabilities modeled better but I don't need to know every piece of minutia in that message window.

On your first point. Right. But on a battlefield 2 km deep, munitions vehicles --for the AFVs-- (along with recovery) would be only about 500m behind firing lines; same for communications et al --and medical would be even closer(coming in and out of harm's way).

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 23

RE: The Infantry - 8/15/2012 5:44:12 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

500m? I doubt that highly.

quote:

2. AMMUNITION SUPPLY FOR TANKS

It is reported that trucks no longer go well forward to supply tanks with ammunition. Trucks now unload out of range of enemy artillery and establish small dumps, which can be cleared in a day. Drivers unload their own vehicles, no extra personnel being allotted for this purpose. Wherever possible, these dumps are located under cover of rising ground, and the tanks come back to the dumps for fresh supplies of ammunition.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/notesna/index.html

(in reply to spellir74)

Post #: 24

RE: The Infantry - 8/15/2012 8:26:04 AM

spellir74

Posts: 1983
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

"Out of range" of [indirect] artillery seems um quite far.

That report is from N Africa; In a desert enviro where there are flat plains. But in hill and dale areas?

I don't mean that support assets are purposefully within visual tracking of enemy or even 500m of enemy. (Note in real life 5 football fields is far--especially considering WWII ranges and speeds.)

Also note that report said recovery occurs on battlefield "very closely behind fighting units". They don't say when or how close though.

Also all AFV are not tanks. Eg over watch weapons and AssGn --with some carrying miniscule ammo good enough for one support mission but not an entire combat mission where it could be redeployed to several support missions (through withdrawing and laterally traversing the area behind the firing line out of sight / range along an "MSR" or "ASR" (main and alt supply routes)).

------
For "tactical RPGs/shooters" --ie "tactical" games with 1:1 LOS management*-- thinking about MSRs and ASRs (supply routes) is not necessary. But for *battlegroup* scale games, it should start to be considered.

[*Those games can call themselves company scale all they want. But at company scale --no less combined arms battlegroups-- user management of all that LOS manifests in fatality being way to high, given the player burden; ...'click fest' 'realtime' etc.]

When a *battlegroup* is engaged in combat it is very much aware of and utilizing its MSRs and ASRs behind the firing line. Those routes trace back to divisional (and ultimately further): the forward platoons are not separated from supply columns --though the lowly soldiers in them might think they are. We have been taught by entertainment that combat happens on the scale of the "lost platoon." But platoons are part of mutually supporting prongs of battle, where the forward platoons are the business ends of MSRs and ASRs stretching back many many kms. korp HQ 10+km deep; armee 23-46km deep.

A div is on paper 4 km square; in truth probably 5k wide by 3k deep. On paper 10-20K men; in reality about 10k, most are not forward firing line but many of those who are not on the firing line are still hyper important and part of "combat pay".

Usually 2 battle groups per division compiled from the div's assets per a combat mission's needs.

PzC is often 2 km maps _often with multiple actions at once on the map (enemy equaling a battalion at least)_; meaning pincers and wings of battle, where one deploys fire superiority rather than each man's LOS. Other games are like a platoon over watching another platoon attacking one target on a narrow strip map. In reality, that one close combat battle would be part of a larger engagement resolved and understood at *battlegroup* level, where that one target would be part of a larger string of mutually dependent/related target-goals understood by higher ups (but all within the div's command).

Platoon types don't think in these terms. But they are not officers; they are harmonica players and smut mag readers. They come and go without ever knowing what the battle really was or what its objectives really were.

---
This supply and recovery is the least developed area of this gaming culture, yet MSRs and ASR are what it's all about.

Does anyone have any sources other than lone sentry speaking about how battlefield supply works? Reliable ones? It can't be that tanks in order to redeploy drive back a good several km (out of 'arty' range) and then several km back to combat. Divs are only 4 k deep or so.

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 25

RE: The Infantry - 8/15/2012 4:34:59 PM

Yoozername

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

For a good insight into why armored operations do not keep supply trucks so close to front line operations, read Tigers in the Mud, pgs. 166-173 'The Ambush'.

Ammunition and Fuel resupply was mostly by wheeled trucks. The use of wheeled vehicles is actually EASIER in the desert than in the East Front. While tracked AFV have mobility in mud and other off-road conditions, trucks are mostly road bound. In my readings, it seems that assembly points and ammunition resupply was greater than 500 meters by an order of magnitude or more. Trucks packed with ammunition are extremely vulnerable. Hence the creation of forward dumps that can be retrieved as previously mentioned. So for the most part, resupply in a game such as this means AFV moving to the rear and doing so off-map.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 8/15/2012 4:35:40 PM >

(in reply to spellir74)

Post #: 26

RE: The Infantry - 8/16/2012 12:21:21 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

As far as grenades...the evidence here does not support the claims above.

http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/casualties/surgeon_general/p_ch3.htm

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 27

RE: The Infantry - 8/17/2012 7:15:07 PM

spellir74

Posts: 1983
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

Fine read.

The chapter before tells that the tiger company had an ammo dump (in a cemetery) 5km from the suspected engagement area. The reading also divulged distances between HQs and combat of 15+ Km! So yes you are right ...except for...

(_ie "BUT"_...)

These are late war firebrigades. Unusually independent and far roving. (Firebrigades are used as damage control or augers. They rely on friendly div(s) in the area for recon-intel, prisoner process, arty, engineers etc (strong point creation; ie capitalizing on gains). These Tiger abteilungen are battalions farmed out by korps and higher as Firebrigades near war's end, imitating an Allied Armour technique. The hero of the book's unit was the 502 Scwhere[heavy] Abteilunge.)

I was thinking more about AssGuns in early war divisional roles and overwatch ATG. I know that StuG ammo HTs stayed "close" as did their spotters(in HTs) who were out in front, reconnoitering off and on. Some assault guns _carried 3 rounds_.

I was thinking of color for the game. Also note that AntiAircraft attachments and Communications attachment (crucial in WWII) are realistic and add color to games.

These latewar Firebrigade abteilunge Tiger tank companies had support APC (armoured personal carriers) as HTs, armored cars AND VW-kubels and motor cycles that followed right behind them to be used out in front as recon vehicles by the COs et al (along with communication attachment, btn staff contingent and occas AA). That should be kept in mind by scenarios makers of firebrigade engagements. Also the tiger company from the book is 12 tanks but "there are always 5 or 6 in repair"; he talks about 2 tanks --him and 'trackmate' (wing)-- and six others at most in combat (usually less).

Note the Russian column that was ambushed was also a firebrigade. Specifically the first big mission of the "Joseph Stalin" brigade and the new Stalin tanks. They penetrated alone --with their supply column in tow-- very deep (50+km? --that's how far Otto Carius[German Tiger company CO] drove to engage them) in a sweeping/flanking coup d main to get to Dunaburg (Daugavpils Lativa). The Russ supply column and its tank support were about 10+km from the forward Stalin Brigade contingent which contained the Russ Brigade CO, 17 Stalins and 5 T34s (destroyed earlier by Carius' Tiger company in Malvina village north of Dunaburg).)

Obviously late war firebrigade pirates (that's the way these "dash-ful" men operated) have different tactics than a Div's ideal techniques.

An earlier chapter speaking about the Tiger company's resupply --Pg154:

"We were resupplying behind high ground far away from the line of sight of the Russians when a richocet [hit Oberfeldwebel Zwetti in the arschlings]." [Would that be his Zwetti arschling?]

So resupply was relatively more close to combat sometimes.

=======
Note to interested readers: every time I go back to the google preview of the book, more and more of what I'm reading is removed from preview. Curious.

< Message edited by spellir74 -- 8/17/2012 9:56:20 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 28

RE: The Infantry - 8/18/2012 2:05:29 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1076
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

Wishful reading on your part. It actually says they were out of line of sight from the enemy. A ricochet means the projectile had to clear the line of sight obstruction and land on target. Projectiles can travel thousands of yards in a case like this. You are hardly describing the physics of a 500 meter event. But, that's OK. I see you are grasping at anything.

Tank ammunition is extremely vulnerable to the smallest fragmentation and even denting etc. Damaged ammunition will jam a gun and that means death during a battle.

(in reply to spellir74)

Post #: 29

RE: The Infantry - 8/18/2012 3:05:59 AM

spellir74

Posts: 1983
Joined: 6/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Wishful reading on your part. It actually says they were out of line of sight from the enemy. A ricochet means the projectile had to clear the line of sight obstruction and land on target. Projectiles can travel thousands of yards in a case like this. You are hardly describing the physics of a 500 meter event. But, that's OK. I see you are grasping at anything.

Tank ammunition is extremely vulnerable to the smallest fragmentation and even denting etc. Damaged ammunition will jam a gun and that means death during a battle.

I was showing a quote (_which was quoted accurately_)-- from your source-- that showed along with resupply dumps being 5km behind the battlefield (and supply columns 10km behind salient penetrations) there were [possibly] closer resupplies EVEN FOR THESE LATE WAR HEAVIES. For these late war heavies the battlefield ranges themselves are 2Km and distances traveled to engage are 10-20km sometimes. Late war is apparently at least sometimes porous fronts and deep No Mans Lands _behind_ enemy positions. Obviously in situations like that my supposition falls.

I did not bring up the late war heavy brigades originally; Terms should have been clarified as to what I was, in part, envisioning. I have seen the _armored_ ammo carrier HTs for the StuG and armored 'schleppers' for the SP ATG. The issue is, how close to firinglines were these armored carriers coming.

Also note the fact that "The Ambush" did destroy a supply column does demonstrate that games could have such supply scenarios in them accurately.

(Regarding the quote: it doesn't matter either way, since both the accurate quote [mine, heh heh] and the re-quoting are correct variations of the same thing... Behind high ground [out of LOS] and far away from Russ LOS. Further, I was not trying to demonstrate "physics" of ricochets nor am I ignorant of how far a ricochet might travel.)

< Message edited by spellir74 -- 8/18/2012 5:28:11 AM >

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 30